Trump always resorts to gaslighting. This is an excellent example.

1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

Trump's "rule" isn't over yet.

yeah i guess we care still waiting for the predicted concentration camps, economic crash and nuclear war

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

yeah i guess we care still waiting for the predicted concentration camps, economic crash and nuclear war

Don't hold your breath.

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

ive seen far more untrustworthy. kennedy. nixon. johnson. obama come to mind

I see you are thumbs down on a lot of anti Trump posts. Your post here, is nonsense except for 1 Nixon.

What come to mind? MAGA member washing Trump balls no matter how idiotic the guy is.

11 hours ago, Yagoda said:

got it. you beleive the mullahs, with their long history of terror and murder are trustworthy. death to america is just a slogan

Where did I state I believe the mullahs? Did you even read my post?

Seems you believe the guy who announced a deal being close dozens of time without ever any deal being confirmed later.

So far nothing achieved but economic disruption...

7 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Hopefully the IRGC loses their grip on the country and that doesn't happen.

Sounds like rather expensive and wishful thinking. I don't think there is any evidence their "grip" has even weakened, let along been lost. For instance, the Iranian Navy (the maritime part of the Artesh), at the bottom of the drink. The IRGC Navy; barely touched. If you were wanting to weaken the IRGC, you would have been more selective and target them, instead of the Artesh, who you would hope would form some part of a government you would approve of. The anti-shipping missiles in current use are coming from the IRGC not the Artesh.

Its like deciding in WW2, to go after the Wehrmacht, but to sort of put the SS Divisions to one side. Post WW2, it was former members of the Wehrmacht who formed the backbone of the Bundeswehr, not the SS.

A rather cheaper way would have been to empower the opposition.

3 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Sounds like rather expensive and wishful thinking. I don't think there is any evidence their "grip" has even weakened, let along been lost. For instance, the Iranian Navy (the maritime part of the Artesh), at the bottom of the drink. The IRGC Navy; barely touched. If you were wanting to weaken the IRGC, you would have been more selective and target them, instead of the Artesh, who you would hope would form some part of a government you would approve of. The anti-shipping missiles in current use are coming from the IRGC not the Artesh.

Its like deciding in WW2, to go after the Wehrmacht, but to sort of put the SS Divisions to one side. Post WW2, it was former members of the Wehrmacht who formed the backbone of the Bundeswehr, not the SS.

A rather cheaper way would have been to empower the opposition.

The IRGC is deeply embedded in the population and is like a cancer that has spread throughout the body. Empowering the opposition is no easy task when dealing with religious fanaticism.

39 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

The IRGC is deeply embedded in the population and is like a cancer that has spread throughout the body. Empowering the opposition is no easy task when dealing with religious fanaticism.

Defeatist, simplistic nonsense. Your lot didn't even bother to try so how would you know. I suspect you don.t really know much about Iran, just spouting off whatever you read in your highly selective reading material/Youtubers. I would argue that equally religious fanaticism is deeply embedded in some Western societies as well.

And notably you have no answer as to why the Artesh was targeted rather than focusing on the IRGC. I suspect you've always wanted war, and a continuous one at that. So you've contrived a war, deliberately targetted the Iranian institutions where true effective opposition will come from, in order to strengthen the IRGC that is supposedly despised. The reality is you don't care about Iranians any more than you care about Venezuelans. For all the talk about democracy and freedom in Venezuela, you installed an actual acolyte of the Bolivarian revolution, and a daughter of a terrorist. You will do the same in Iran, install another dictator in Iran, who will continue to kill people, but who will make some of your people lots of money.

7 hours ago, zappalot said:

So far nothing achieved but economic disruption...

got it. the mullahs can still project power

On 6/10/2026 at 4:19 PM, bannork said:

President Donald Trump stunned reporters in the Oval Office by declaring that rising inflation and stock market losses linked to the conflict with Iran were a price worth paying to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The 79-year-old president made the remarks on Wednesday when questioned about inflation reaching a three-year high of 4.2 per cent last month as energy prices climbed during the war.

Rather than expressing concern, Trump insisted he was pleased with the figures and argued that the economic impact formed part of a broader strategy behind the military action. "No, I love it – the numbers were great," Trump told reporters.

"You know what I really love? I love the inflation."

The extraordinary comments came as Trump claimed the United States had been quietly removing millions of barrels of oil from the market through military action against Iran. According to the president, those operations helped drive oil prices to $85 a barrel.

Trump said: "Because as soon as this war is over, you know, I can say it now, something you didn't know." "You know, we've been taking out millions of barrels of oil, nobody knows it."

He went on to claim that Iran itself had been unaware of the operations until his remarks.

"You know who doesn't know about it? Iran, until right now we took out the other night 22 ships late at night with no lights because they don't have any radar because we blasted the crap out of it."

"We took out, that's why oil is $85 a barrel."

The president also revealed details of discussions he said took place before the military operation that launched the conflict.

According to Trump, he gathered key members of his administration to discuss the potential consequences of attacking Iran.

Among those he named were Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Trump said he warned officials that military action could damage what he described as a booming economy.

"I mean, you take a look – remember when I did this?" he said.

"I said, look, the one bad thing will be we hit the best economy we've ever hit."

The president claimed the United States had recently achieved record stock market levels and record 401(k) retirement account values before the attack. "We had just hit the highest stock market in history, highest 401ks in history," Trump said.

"Everything was going well."

Despite those concerns, Trump said he concluded that action against Iran was necessary because he believed the country was close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. "I said, I hate to do this to you guys, but Iran's going to have a nuclear weapon very soon."

"We have to go and attack."

Trump said the operation involved B-2 bombers and described the mission as a success. "So we hit him with the B-2 bombers, which took a lot of courage," he said. "It was totally successful."

The president claimed the strikes had effectively buried their target and made it extremely difficult to access. He also acknowledged that experts had predicted a significant market reaction following the attack.

According to Trump, some forecasts suggested stocks could fall by as much as 25 per cent. However, he insisted that any economic pain was justified.

"I said, you know, the bad part is the stock market will go down by little bit – a lot, based on predictions of experts, like 25 percent, and it was worth it to me."

"It was worth it not to have a nuclear weapon."

The remarks are likely to intensify debate over the economic consequences of the conflict and the administration's handling of inflation, energy prices and market performance. For now, Trump remains unapologetic, arguing that any financial fallout from the war was outweighed by what he described as the need to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Trump claims he tanked economy on purpose

This post is a textbook example of mixing facts with opinion.

Trump arguing that economic pain is worth preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is not the same as admitting he "tanked the economy on purpose."

The headline is an interpretation, not a quote.

Before accepting a viral claim, it's worth asking: where is the full video, transcript or independent verification of the more dramatic statements? So far, much of the outrage seems to be directed at a headline rather than what was actually said.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

got it.

No - you do not. You do not even understand the Israeli report I posted after you asked for (since you did not find anything by yourself :-) )

On 6/10/2026 at 8:13 PM, Hawaiian said:

He loves inflation, but hates high interest rates. That's like saying I hate God, but want to go to heaven. What an imbecile!

This sounds clever, but it isn't.

Inflation and interest rates aren't the same thing.

Interest rates are one of the tools used to fight inflation.

Someone can believe inflation is being driven by energy prices or a geopolitical event and still think the Fed's interest rates are too high.

You may disagree with that position, but it's not a contradiction. It's a policy argument.

Calling someone an imbecile isn't a substitute for understanding basic economics.

On 6/11/2026 at 12:23 AM, Wingate said:

If that truly was Trump's intention, he wouldn't have quashed the JCPOA, where Iran was completely out of the nuke game. Since that was Obama's accomplishment, however, and because Obama has lived rent free in Trump's otherwise empty head since the jokes at the Correspondents Dinner, Trump had to mess things up. That is what does does best...mess things up.

As for Iran and nukes now, Iran was not even remotely close to a bomb, nor close to the means of delivering it to the US via an ICBM. You would be long dead and buried before that was even a possibility.

I think you're oversimplifying what happened with the Iran deal.

The argument against the JCPOA was never just that Iran was violating it in 2018. The bigger criticism was that it didn't actually end Iran's nuclear ambitions. It delayed them while allowing Iran to keep enrichment capability, it didn't deal with ballistic missiles and included sunset provisions where major restrictions eventually expired.

So saying "Iran was completely out of the nuke game" isn't really accurate. The deal put limits on the program, but it didn't eliminate the program.

And the claim that opposition to the deal was only because Obama negotiated it ignores the fact that there were serious objections from Republicans, Israel, several Arab states and a number of security experts long before Trump pulled out.

As for Iran not being close to a bomb, that's a separate debate. But if Iran was truly no threat and nowhere near nuclear capability, then why has the IAEA spent years raising concerns about uranium enrichment levels, stockpiles and reduced cooperation from Iran?

You can argue the JCPOA was the best available option, but claiming Iran was "completely out of the nuke game" and that the only reason anyone opposed the deal was because of Obama isn't supported by the facts.

12 hours ago, Priorexpat said:

I see you are thumbs down on a lot of anti Trump posts. Your post here, is nonsense except for 1 Nixon.

What come to mind? MAGA member washing Trump balls no matter how idiotic the guy is.

Trump makes Nixon look like an honest Boy Scout. The degree of moral degradation and ethical bankruptcy that this man possesses is unheard of in the annals of the American presidency. And that's not to say there weren't some corrupt presidents, but Trump beats them all by a hundred fold.

48 minutes ago, zappalot said:

No - you do not. You do not even understand the Israeli report I posted after you asked for (since you did not find anything by yourself :-) )

you support the losing side, your posts are meaningless

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

you support the losing side, your posts are meaningless

You are the trump/loosing side supporter, just admitting it is hard, right?

You asked for proof that you were wrong, I delivered - and then it is meaningless? You learned from your "dear leader"...

21 hours ago, it is what it is said:

is america great yet? from an outsiders view it looks far from greatness, indeed the current iranian conflict shows how impotent america is.

lol....If America is "impotent," it's the most powerful impotent country in recorded history.

You don't have to like U.S. foreign policy to recognize that America still has the world's largest economy, strongest military, dominant reserve currency, leading technology companies and alliances spanning the globe.

And here's something I always find interesting: every day, thousands of people try to come to the United States, some legally and some illegally.

People don't typically risk everything to move to places they believe offer no opportunity.

Is America perfect? Not even close and Americans argue about its problems constantly.

But if America is supposedly such a terrible place, why do millions of people around the world still dream of living here, studying here, working here, investing here or becoming citizens here?

Criticize America all you want, that's fair but "impotent" feels like the wrong word.

Usually when a country is truly irrelevant or powerless, nobody is trying to get in and nobody spends all day talking about it.

On 6/11/2026 at 12:33 AM, zappalot said:

So far no gain at all.

So there must be a huge future gain just to compensate for the current pain.
After Trump barred international recognized experts to monitor Irans nuclear activities I wonder what might be a better way to control it.

I also wonder: initially Trumps followers argued: if you do not want to get rid off the Iranian regime you are acting in favour of them. Now, after Trump failed 100% to get rid of these monsters in control of Iran, he even gave up this goal. Is he now also for them?

I think “no gain at all” is a pretty big stretch.

Whether someone agrees with the operation or not, Iran’s military leadership, missile infrastructure, air defenses and nuclear facilities have taken serious hits.

You can argue whether it was worth the cost, but saying there was “no gain” is like saying your house is fine because only half the roof is missing.

Also, I think the goalposts are moving here.

The main argument was stopping or delaying Iran’s nuclear capability. Now the criticism is that Trump didn’t completely overthrow the Iranian regime? Those are two very different goals.

I don’t remember regime change being the stated objective. The objective was to damage Iran’s ability to build and deliver nuclear weapons.

As for inspections, yes, inspections are useful. But the problem with the Obama deal was that it didn’t permanently end Iran’s nuclear path. It allowed enrichment, ignored missiles and had sunset provisions. That’s why a lot of people had a problem with it.

So I think it’s fair to debate whether the strategy was right. But saying “no gain at all” while also attacking Trump for not accomplishing a goal that wasn’t the stated goal.

18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

During the first Trump term, I would sometimes have to catch myself because even though I thought and think that Trump is uniquely despicable and dangerous, the fact remains that if you just want to look at the number of lives lost and global damage done, George W. Bush really outstripped him. Trump is maybe a worse person, but the damage that he did in his first term was much more contained.

I think that in the second Trump term he’s changed that very quickly. Not just by taking America’s soft power and setting it on fire in all sorts of ways, but really making these abrupt decisions that are going to kill hundreds of thousands and maybe more than a million people and he’s doing it in this incredibly arbitrary, careless way.

Trump is destroying the US economy one step at a time. It could be intentional. It could be diabolical. Nobody knows. He could simply be unhinged or following the dictates of a very sinister cabal. 

One thing is certain. He is accomplishing very little, he will NOT bring manufacturing back to America, which is stupid over priced (I am here now and inflation is raging at 20% or higher right now), he is causing alot of pain, he is losing support, destroying businesses, and consumer confidence, he does not have a coherent plan, and he is a destructive nimwit.

He's engaging in nothing but massive destruction of the economy, the environment, the land, the seas, the air, the national lands, the wilderness areas, our alliance with close friends and long term allies, aligning himself with dictators and serial killing despots, and tearing down everything that's good about the world. That is just who Trump is. 

 

Globalization made the world great, the manufacturing ecosystems within globalization and low tariffs allowed the US economy to thrive for decades, and he's never going to bring back manufacturing to the US. End of story, just a slogan. The fact that so many people are buying into his nonsense and destruction, is what is truly sad. And that is not a party that I want to have anything to do with, on any level, at any time.

I don’t think he has a coherent value structure as most of us understand it. I think we’re seeing a president who’s operating without anything any of us would recognize as a conscience. Truly.

It is about showing what he can get away with. It’s about showing his enemies that what they support, he can tear down. It is all about displays of brute strength. He gets off on that, and in that sense, it seems not so much an autocracy but a flexocracy. Let me show you how I can flex my bicep as I use it to power my fist coming into your face.

It’s not about any coherent values. It’s not about any North Star. It’s about showing that you can turn the boat 180 degrees around and that you can do whatever you want and you can bring the people who opposed you to their knees.

I agree that reasonable people can disagree about Trump, his policies, tariffs, foreign policy and just about everything else. I know I disagree with some of the policies!

What I struggle with is when opinions get presented as facts.

For example, you say he's going to kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Based on what evidence? That's an extraordinary claim.

You say inflation is running at 20% or higher. Official inflation data isn't anywhere close to that. Things may feel expensive, but that's different from 20% inflation.

You say he is destroying the economy. Yet unemployment remains relatively low, GDP is still positive, markets have experienced both gains and losses and economists themselves are divided on the long-term effects of tariffs and reshoring policies.

You say manufacturing will never come back. Maybe not at 1970s levels, but we've already seen major investments in semiconductor plants, battery plants, energy infrastructure and advanced manufacturing in the U.S. under multiple administrations. The real question is how much manufacturing and which industries, not whether it's literally impossible.

You say he has no coherent plan. That's possible. But it's also possible that you simply disagree with the plan. Those are not the same thing.

The biggest thing I notice is that nearly every negative prediction about Trump is stated as a certainty, while every potential benefit is dismissed before it can even be measured.

Maybe he's wrong. Maybe some of these policies fail. But if we're being objective, the evidence doesn't support many of these claims with the level of certainty they're being presented.

I think it's healthier to separate what we know from what we fear, and what has actually happened from what we think might happen.

18 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

If anything the war has virtually guaranteed Iran will acquire a nuclear capability at some time in the future. The difference is they might not seek a homegrown capability anymore, but might decide a third party route is the fastest way to guarantee national survival. They would, possibly correctly, conclude that being a member of the nuclear club means being able to act with impunity.

What will the United States do if North Korean transport effect a transfer using chartered Russian heavy lift aircraft?

I'm not sure I follow the logic here.

If Iran decided it wanted a ready-made nuclear weapon from another country, why would Russia risk being the middleman and secretly transport North Korean nuclear weapons?

At that point, if Russia were willing to take that level of risk, why wouldn't Russia simply provide assistance directly?

More importantly, the transfer of an actual nuclear weapon is a completely different category from technology transfers or conventional arms sales. You're talking about an act that could trigger massive international consequences for every country involved.

It also assumes North Korea would be willing to hand over one of its most valuable strategic assets and Russia would be willing to facilitate it and somehow all of this would occur without intelligence agencies around the world noticing.

Could Iran become more determined to pursue a nuclear deterrent after the conflict? Sure, that's a reasonable argument.

But jumping from that to a scenario involving North Korean nukes, Russian transport aircraft and covert transfers seems like several additional leaps that need to be explained.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most likely one. If Iran wants a nuclear capability, history suggests it would continue pursuing its own program rather than relying on a complicated multinational conspiracy that would require multiple governments to take enormous risks on its behalf.

5 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Defeatist, simplistic nonsense. Your lot didn't even bother to try so how would you know. I suspect you don.t really know much about Iran, just spouting off whatever you read in your highly selective reading material/Youtubers. I would argue that equally religious fanaticism is deeply embedded in some Western societies as well.

And notably you have no answer as to why the Artesh was targeted rather than focusing on the IRGC. I suspect you've always wanted war, and a continuous one at that. So you've contrived a war, deliberately targetted the Iranian institutions where true effective opposition will come from, in order to strengthen the IRGC that is supposedly despised. The reality is you don't care about Iranians any more than you care about Venezuelans. For all the talk about democracy and freedom in Venezuela, you installed an actual acolyte of the Bolivarian revolution, and a daughter of a terrorist. You will do the same in Iran, install another dictator in Iran, who will continue to kill people, but who will make some of your people lots of money.

I think there’s a lot of assumption in this.

When you say "you wanted war," "you wanted a continuous war," "you don't care about Iranians," or "you want to install another dictator," who exactly is "you"?

The U.S. isn't a single person with a single motive. There are Republicans, Democrats, military leaders, diplomats, intelligence agencies, allies, critics and millions of citizens with very different views. You're taking a very complex set of decisions and assigning one motive to an entire country.

On the Artesh/IRGC point, the IRGC has clearly not been left alone. Senior IRGC commanders have been killed, missile infrastructure has been targeted and IRGC-linked command-and-control capabilities have been hit. So I don't think the claim that the IRGC was somehow protected or strengthened is supported by the evidence.

As for "just empower the opposition," that sounds straightforward until you start asking practical questions. Which opposition? Who leads it? How much support do they actually have? What happens if the regime falls? History is full of examples where the easy answer turned out not to be so easy.

I'm happy to debate whether the strategy was right or wrong. What I'm less convinced by is the habit of assigning motives to entire countries and then treating those assumptions as established facts.

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sane washing.

I'm not sure that's "sane-washing."

I didn't say Trump was right. I didn't say his policies would succeed. I didn't even say I agreed with all of them.

I asked for evidence behind claims that were being presented as certainty.

If asking for evidence, distinguishing facts from predictions and acknowledging uncertainty is "sane-washing," then we're basically saying political claims shouldn't have to meet the same standard of proof we'd expect anywhere else.

I'm happy to discuss the facts. But labels aren't really an argument.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump makes Nixon look like an honest Boy Scout. The degree of moral degradation and ethical bankruptcy that this man possesses is unheard of in the annals of the American presidency. And that's not to say there weren't some corrupt presidents, but Trump beats them all by a hundred fold.

I respect your opinion, but statements like this are so absolute that they're hard to discuss objectively.

"Most corrupt president ever," "moral degradation unheard of," "a hundred times worse" those aren't really factual claims. They're expressions of how strongly you feel about Trump.

What I've noticed is that many discussions about Trump have become all-or-nothing. Some people can't acknowledge a single thing he does right, while others can't acknowledge a single thing he does wrong. Personally, I try to judge policies and outcomes individually.

There are things Trump has done that I disagree with. There are things he's done that I think have merit. The same is true of every president.

Once we get to the point where every action is automatically evil or automatically brilliant depending on who did it, we're not really evaluating facts anymore. We're evaluating tribes.

I think it's healthier we judge each decision on their own merits rather than starting with the conclusion and work backward from there.

1 hour ago, ericthai said:

I think “no gain at all” is a pretty big stretch.

Ok, granted.

But: given the goals set at the beginning we agree that:

1. eliminating the evil regime - did not happen (-1 point for the US) The powerful in Iran are laughing at the US... And so does Putin and other dictators

2. making sure they do not get a nuke - no change to before the war (so far) (another -1 point for the US)

3. was it the goal to interrupt oil flow? certainly not, but they got that (another -1 point for the US)

4. the US used a high percentage of the their valuable ammunition, so they shot themselves in the foot, another -1 point

5. and the US became the laughing stock of many in the world, after claiming many times that Iran was destroyed, like completely destroyed, after claiming they lost the war - they control Hormuz and still can shoot down from the sky whatever they want, so which goal was really achieved here?

6. The negotiator of all dealmakers in the world could not negotiate the slightest deal without war - but was bragging about that he could - will he be taken serious by other dictators again? He failed with Kim, he failed with Putin and now he failed with Iran...

I see minus 6 points for the US here - so while there are some minor goals that were achieved there is nothing Iran can not fix or compensate (e.g. with lots of drones)...

2 hours ago, ericthai said:

I respect your opinion, but statements like this are so absolute that they're hard to discuss objectively.

"Most corrupt president ever," "moral degradation unheard of," "a hundred times worse" those aren't really factual claims. They're expressions of how strongly you feel about Trump.

What I've noticed is that many discussions about Trump have become all-or-nothing. Some people can't acknowledge a single thing he does right, while others can't acknowledge a single thing he does wrong. Personally, I try to judge policies and outcomes individually.

There are things Trump has done that I disagree with. There are things he's done that I think have merit. The same is true of every president.

Once we get to the point where every action is automatically evil or automatically brilliant depending on who did it, we're not really evaluating facts anymore. We're evaluating tribes.

I think it's healthier we judge each decision on their own merits rather than starting with the conclusion and work backward from there.

Classic "he kept the trains running on time post". You would have found positives in Hitler and Mussolini. After all, without Hitler, there would have never been a VW GTi nor Porsche 911. And Mussolini really did keep the trains running on time.

I think you need to list all of his policies your support, and all of his policies that you oppose, and see how both sides rip you to shreds, over your lack of a spine.

Both were scumbags however. This forum is just about expressing opinions. You are supremely naive if this is some sort of debate, because that implies you think a Thailand based forum matters one iota.

I've more respect for the MAGA acolytes, rather than fence sitters. Its the fence sitters who are largely responsible for the current mess, largely for not taking their vote seriously, or not bothering to vote. And that's also true in the United Kingdom.

I suspect you are not listing the policies you oppose, because in fact, you support all of it, but pretending to be a sceptic.

3 hours ago, ericthai said:

I agree that reasonable people can disagree about Trump, his policies, tariffs, foreign policy and just about everything else. I know I disagree with some of the policies!

What I struggle with is when opinions get presented as facts.

For example, you say he's going to kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Based on what evidence? That's an extraordinary claim.

You say inflation is running at 20% or higher. Official inflation data isn't anywhere close to that. Things may feel expensive, but that's different from 20% inflation.

You say he is destroying the economy. Yet unemployment remains relatively low, GDP is still positive, markets have experienced both gains and losses and economists themselves are divided on the long-term effects of tariffs and reshoring policies.

You say manufacturing will never come back. Maybe not at 1970s levels, but we've already seen major investments in semiconductor plants, battery plants, energy infrastructure and advanced manufacturing in the U.S. under multiple administrations. The real question is how much manufacturing and which industries, not whether it's literally impossible.

You say he has no coherent plan. That's possible. But it's also possible that you simply disagree with the plan. Those are not the same thing.

The biggest thing I notice is that nearly every negative prediction about Trump is stated as a certainty, while every potential benefit is dismissed before it can even be measured.

Maybe he's wrong. Maybe some of these policies fail. But if we're being objective, the evidence doesn't support many of these claims with the level of certainty they're being presented.

I think it's healthier to separate what we know from what we fear, and what has actually happened from what we think might happen.

I certainly never meant to imply that he is a Hitler type and he's going to be out there assassinating millions of people. What I did imply is that there is some pretty hard evidence to support the fact that hundreds of thousands of women and children have died due to life-saving medicines that the usaid program provided them at very minimal cost to America, which it no longer does due to callous and heartless policy.

17 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I certainly never meant to imply that he is a Hitler type and he's going to be out there assassinating millions of people. What I did imply is that there is some pretty hard evidence to support the fact that hundreds of thousands of women and children have died due to life-saving medicines that the usaid program provided them at very minimal cost to America, which it no longer does due to callous and heartless policy.

I appreciate the clarification. I agree that reducing aid can have real consequences, and it's reasonable to debate whether those consequences justify the savings.

What I'm pushing back on is the certainty and scale of the claim.

Saying that "hundreds of thousands" have died, or will die, because of a particular policy requires strong evidence. Predictive models, advocacy reports, and worst-case projections are not the same thing as verified deaths directly attributable to a specific policy change.

The same standard should apply regardless of who is president. If someone claims a policy saved hundreds of thousands of lives, I'd want evidence. If someone claims a policy killed hundreds of thousands of people, I'd want evidence for that too.

I also think there's a legitimate policy question here that often gets ignored: should the United States continue borrowing money and adding to its national debt in order to fund programs all over the world? Reasonable people can disagree on that. Some will argue the humanitarian benefits justify the cost. Others will argue that a country already trillions in debt has an obligation to prioritize its own fiscal situation and domestic needs.

18 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Classic "he kept the trains running on time post". You would have found positives in Hitler and Mussolini. After all, without Hitler, there would have never been a VW GTi nor Porsche 911. And Mussolini really did keep the trains running on time.

I think you need to list all of his policies your support, and all of his policies that you oppose, and see how both sides rip you to shreds, over your lack of a spine.

Both were scumbags however. This forum is just about expressing opinions. You are supremely naive if this is some sort of debate, because that implies you think a Thailand based forum matters one iota.

I've more respect for the MAGA acolytes, rather than fence sitters. Its the fence sitters who are largely responsible for the current mess, largely for not taking their vote seriously, or not bothering to vote. And that's also true in the United Kingdom.

I suspect you are not listing the policies you oppose, because in fact, you support all of it, but pretending to be a sceptic.

You're proving the point I was making.

I said policies should be judged individually, and that Trump has done some things I agree with and some things I disagree with. Your response wasn't to address a specific policy. It was to compare me to people who excused Hitler and Mussolini, call me spineless, and assume I secretly support everything Trump does.

That isn't an argument. That's just personal attack and mind-reading.

Also, the fact that this is a Thailand-based forum has nothing to do with the point. I never claimed this was a national debate or that this forum was going to change world history. It's a forum. People post opinions, people respond and sometimes those opinions are challenged. That is true whether the forum is based in Thailand, the US, the UK or anywhere else.

If the forum "doesn't matter," then your opinion here doesn't matter either, but you're still posting it. So clearly we both understand that forums are places where people exchange views, not parliaments where laws are being passed.

You also seem to think that not being blindly anti-Trump means being blindly pro-Trump. That's the exact tribal thinking I'm criticizing.

I took my vote seriously. I looked at the choices, the policies, the direction of the country and I made my decision. I did not vote for Kamala Harris because I believed her policies and leadership would have been worse for the country. That doesn't mean I worship Trump or agree with everything he does.

There are Trump policies I support. There are Trump policies I oppose. That is called independent thinking, not fence-sitting.

If you want to discuss specific policies, fine. But comparing everyone who doesn't share your level of hatred for Trump to Hitler sympathizers is not a serious argument. It's just emotional labeling.

20 hours ago, zappalot said:

Ok, granted.

But: given the goals set at the beginning we agree that:

1. eliminating the evil regime - did not happen (-1 point for the US) The powerful in Iran are laughing at the US... And so does Putin and other dictators

2. making sure they do not get a nuke - no change to before the war (so far) (another -1 point for the US)

3. was it the goal to interrupt oil flow? certainly not, but they got that (another -1 point for the US)

4. the US used a high percentage of the their valuable ammunition, so they shot themselves in the foot, another -1 point

5. and the US became the laughing stock of many in the world, after claiming many times that Iran was destroyed, like completely destroyed, after claiming they lost the war - they control Hormuz and still can shoot down from the sky whatever they want, so which goal was really achieved here?

6. The negotiator of all dealmakers in the world could not negotiate the slightest deal without war - but was bragging about that he could - will he be taken serious by other dictators again? He failed with Kim, he failed with Putin and now he failed with Iran...

I see minus 6 points for the US here - so while there are some minor goals that were achieved there is nothing Iran can not fix or compensate (e.g. with lots of drones)...

Your scorecard only counts what you think Iran gained while ignoring what Iran lost.

Iran lost senior military leaders, suffered damage to military and nuclear infrastructure, exposed weaknesses in its air defenses and took further economic hits.

Whether those losses were worth it is debatable, but they still count.

You also assume the goal was regime change. It wasn't. If your definition of success is overthrowing the Iranian government, then almost any limited military operation would be considered a failure.

As for "Iran is winning," by what metric? Their economy is weaker, infrastructure has been damaged and key personnel have been lost. That doesn't prove the U.S. achieved every objective, but it doesn't support the claim that Iran is the clear winner either. What I see is a mixed outcome with costs on both sides, not the one-sided victory for Iran that you're describing.

22 hours ago, ericthai said:

lol....If America is "impotent," it's the most powerful impotent country in recorded history.

You don't have to like U.S. foreign policy to recognize that America still has the world's largest economy, strongest military, dominant reserve currency, leading technology companies and alliances spanning the globe.

And here's something I always find interesting: every day, thousands of people try to come to the United States, some legally and some illegally.

People don't typically risk everything to move to places they believe offer no opportunity.

Is America perfect? Not even close and Americans argue about its problems constantly.

But if America is supposedly such a terrible place, why do millions of people around the world still dream of living here, studying here, working here, investing here or becoming citizens here?

Criticize America all you want, that's fair but "impotent" feels like the wrong word.

Usually when a country is truly irrelevant or powerless, nobody is trying to get in and nobody spends all day talking about it.

IMO you need to look at trends. The trajectory of public debt is alarming. Reserve currency status is eroding. Not so long ago it was more than 70% , now it is less than 60%. Most countries with US treasuries are selling them, which means the Fed has to offer higher interest rates, which flows into domestic interest rates.

Alliances? ROFL, Between tariffs and slagging off just about every American ally on the planet? Are you for real?

The Romans had the world's most powerful military too. The rot came from within.