Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.
There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.
I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.
Corruption has existed before, but it has never been this out in the open.
Which can only probably be a benefit. If the corruption is this blatant and bad maybe the next swing around the pendulum there is less because people realize how much it's bad.
Is secret corruption or open corruption worse? It's an interesting question; each has unique cons.
I will say that open corruption is only better if people recognize it as corruption. The people in my life do not know about the things I mentioned, and they don't care to learn about it.
People tend to vote with their wallets in mind more than anything. I think that's why it ping ponged(inflation), and why they're getting destroyed in the midterm polling. The next president will likely have a D next to their name(more inflation).
They reinterpreted the constitution to say no president can be presidentmore than twice consecutively, even though it doesn't say that. Like how in Russia, the constitution obviously meant to say Putin will always be the president.
Trump himself only happened because Ds abandoned the working class for grievance politics circa 2010 — forming “public private partnerships” to tear open old wounds while screwing the working class on behalf of corporations.
-isms of all kind are powerful. But the most powerful are those that give the believer a distant group of people for them to blame for all their troubles, which are often self-inflicted.
We must be reading different charts — the only one I can see has consistent numbers among Republicans (50%) but high numbers for Democrats (90%) except for Whites (20%).
So your characterization is completely wrong: Republicans mildly think everybody does, while Democrats deny white people do.
All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics ...
My Boomer mother tells me about this all the time. She said, growing up, people had absolute faith in everything the US government did or said; it was like religion. Then Vietnam happened. Specifically, the reporting around Vietnam and the number of casualties. My mother said that everyone knew someone who lost a family member in Vietnam, but the government was like, "Everything's fine."
Time will tell how the votes will go in November. Right now the thing I'm hearing on podcasts is that a significant group of people who voted for Trump in 2024 might stay home. We'll know in less than two months.
Because they are flailing? Fuel prices will decide the midterms. There are pockets of die hards but after asking plenty of trump voters, they aren't happy. As long as the democrats in the US keep the identity shit to a minimum and make gains on actual issues likr housing and healthcare they can't lose.
You think those "losses" aren't (to a degree) calculated? They are going to try their damnedest to win enough seats to do what they want, without winning so many that they'd have to do what they must.
The greatest career move a politician can make is to take an issue that lots of people are suffering from and make sure it is never solved but people still think they are the one who can solve it. This is Bernie's whole career (among others).
During conflict, which side is winning or losing is usually counted in number of body bags sent home. These tend to influence voters tremendously. Anything to tell a good story on that front.
Roy Cohn, one of young Trump's "educators" (also tied to McCarthy's Red Scare)
He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly
Notably, the US is on precisely the opposite side of the conflict in 2026 compared to 2006.
To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.
This is par for the course for US foreign policy in the region.
There's even (disputed) allegations that Bush Sr funneled money and weapons to bin Laden in opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If true, the big 2006 enemy was a 1986 ally.
Yeah, I was gonna say, as conspiracy theories go, this one is pretty much in the books at this point. Fuck man, Tom Hanks stars in a movie about it; that's about as mainstream as it gets.
That’s… hilariously not exactly new either. It can be said that our enemies and allies in 2006 were the almost exact opposite of the conflict in the 1980’s when we were funding the afghan mujahideen to fight the soviets.
So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting.
Seems exactly on the same side to me- Netanyahu was the one that pushed most for the US invasion of Iraq:
"Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel [...] also visited Washington in late 2002 to lobby for the invasion of Iraq.
Apparently referring to testimony on the Middle East that Mr. Netanyahu delivered to Congress on Sept. 12, 2002, when he was a private citizen, Mr. Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “The prime minister, as you will recall, was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush, and we all know what happened with that decision.”
Video of Mr. Netanyahu’s 2002 remarks — in which he said “I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice, it’s the right choice”
The newspaper also reported, citing another unidentified official, that not all of the undisclosed deaths were directly tied to the months-long conflict but involved US personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities.
If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?
It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.
To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.
Are you, uh, mixing up the term "midrats" with something?
I've not seen this claim. The fact that they sent it immediately home for a port call (and had SecNavy visit for a pep talk) when the news of conditions on the Lincoln broke is probably indicative.
What logistics concerns are there? Isn't the US supposed to be one of the best at managing wartime logistics, which is why they have bases all around the world?
They put an alcoholic fox news host in charge of the military and he fired or otherwise forced out a ton of experienced leaders in the name of "the warrior ethos" and "high testosterone soldiers".
In a completely unrelated development the "worlds best logistics organization" is now having trouble with logistics.
If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.
Were they at that base as a (say) mechanic servicing aircraft engines for flights over the Persian Gulf? Are the only reasons why the planes (and thus him) are there is because of the hostilities with Iran, as otherwise they would be States-side?
There’s often more ambiguity than that. “Died of a COVID linked complication with COVID and other issue that is also linked to that complication.” You can’t spend endless resources deciding if something is or isn’t responsible.
Systems use arbitrary buckets like if someone commits suicide in less than six months from coming home after a war might count it, while excluding every case after six months. That’s going to misclassify cases in both directions but means you don’t need to track millions of people for decades or look through mental health details.
Obviously people with more data to work with can make a convincing case you’re wrong, but higher levels accuracy get expensive. In the end we know more than 1 million Americans died of COVID for example, how many more isn’t precisely known but ~1 million is plenty useful for decision making around the next pandemic.
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.
The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.
It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".
The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".
The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".
Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."
"United States aircraft may fly over and land in any territory in Greenland"
"the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto... (ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment"
Sure but maybe we have them in a much more important and secure way.
I agree Denmark is/was unlikely to allow Russia or China to set up a base in Greenland (who knows about commercial exploration), but at the same time you have to remember that the EU let China into its communication systems via Hauwei, and Germany for example voluntarily became dependent on Russian gas and oil infrastructure which they have thankfully reversed. The EU isn’t immune from bad decisions or ones which threaten NATO security.
Reading that it sounds like nothing is changing in terms of US military access to Greenland, and they’re essentially just reaffirming the existing agreement which provided broad and permanent US and NATO access to Greenland.
I think interacting with Trump is like interacting with a dementia patient who also is a malignant narcissistic and pathological liar, so I imagine Danish and US staffers had to find a way to frame the agreement to him that made it sound like he had gained something major, in order to get him to shut up about the issue and stop obsessing over his conquest ideas.
It might be but then you have to remember Iran intentionally murdered over 30,000 of its own people including women and children so that’s actually what should be the top story of all world news for a year.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gutted a program that's designed to limit the number of civilians killed by American forces. He did that over unanimous objections from top commanders after polling them, according to reporting from ProPublica.
Any given policy choice we make results in bad things happening to someone. War is just politics by other means. If we stand around and do nothing, maybe Iran kills 5000 kids for being homosexual over the next few years? If we close all the coal mines a whole entire state goes on an opioid addiction. If we don’t close the coal mines the environment suffers and people die from pollution. If we don’t kill millions of Japanese soldiers maybe China is still a Japanese colony.
Life is tough. There aren’t perfect answers. Cackling criticism from the safety of the couch doesn’t solve anything.
"We got rid of the people who prevent civilian casualties and a bunch of civilians died shortly thereafter" isn't the unpreventable random act of God you're trying to make it out to be.
It's crazy just how bullshit this war has been. At least with Iraq, you can argue that Saddam Hussein used to own WMDs in the 90s. What the hell is America doing in Iran?
We’re attempting to degrade the capability of Israel’s primary regional opponent so that Israel can continue and accelerate its ethnic cleansing and land annexations in both the Palestinian territories it administers, and in the neighboring states of Lebanon and Syria. That’s what we’re doing.
I recently fell into a rabbit hole of YouTube docs about wars from WW2's end till 2000
Most of those wars were mostly caused or perpetuated by the US or USSR not wanting countries to go to the other side.
In any video that shows the timeline of any war, there's scenes from the war, then it cuts to photos and scenes of politicians in the "master countries" sitting in their offices making decisions,
looking worried, on the phone, arguing, exasperated etc but otherwise comfortable, in their armchairs or on their sofas, far far removed from the people dying in the war..
If Congress can get its act together, it can clearly tell this lunatic to fall in line and start performing according to his Job description, otherwise boot him out. But there's no chance they are going to do it.
They politicized fallen heroes from the Afghanisation withdrawal for their campaign time during RNC 2024. Current events clearly show they don't give a F about anything but themselves.
And all the republicans will still vote red for the lying, cheating, grifting man.
All my life I have had faith in the governments reports and statistics for the most part. This admin has torn everything down and for what?
To keep the grift going, of course.
That's fair to say, but lacks details.
Most of Trump's public statements are done through a company that he owns. That same company charges a modest $100,000 per month for early access to his posts; just straight up facilitating insider trading for the President's personal profit. Plus people might find the administration making decision in their favor while paying the $100,000 a month.
There's also Trumpcoin through which people can transfer money to the President. This just happens in the open. Remember when Trump had personal 1-on-1 meetings with the top Trumpcoin holders? I remember.
I've barely scratched the surface here. Trump's personal worth has increased $3,000,000,000 during his second term, so far.
Corruption has existed before, but it has never been this out in the open.
Which can only probably be a benefit. If the corruption is this blatant and bad maybe the next swing around the pendulum there is less because people realize how much it's bad.
Is secret corruption or open corruption worse? It's an interesting question; each has unique cons.
I will say that open corruption is only better if people recognize it as corruption. The people in my life do not know about the things I mentioned, and they don't care to learn about it.
It'll remain bad unless these people face the proper punishment for selling out the country.
They had a firm belief that the reports and statistics were fake. Let's see how this turns out.
*by "they" I mean the voters... the people that were elected were, and are well informed
How confident are we that they know it’s fake? I somehow doubt they close the door and pull out the real information.
People tend to vote with their wallets in mind more than anything. I think that's why it ping ponged(inflation), and why they're getting destroyed in the midterm polling. The next president will likely have a D next to their name(more inflation).
Both times Trump won, the polls predicted he would lose.
Not by anything like the 8-9 points we're seeing in midterm polling right now.
Legally can't run a third time or be voted for again. But then again, legality hasn't stopped the things he does. Others need to step up.
They reinterpreted the constitution to say no president can be presidentmore than twice consecutively, even though it doesn't say that. Like how in Russia, the constitution obviously meant to say Putin will always be the president.
I heard a good quote once: People don't vote to say thank you. People vote to say fuck you.
How true is that? Plenty of older people I know vote consistently for one party because it did something good for them a long time ago.
I don't trust polling.
Trump himself only happened because Ds abandoned the working class for grievance politics circa 2010 — forming “public private partnerships” to tear open old wounds while screwing the working class on behalf of corporations.
Ds are doing neither. They're just pretending if they don't change anything, everything will be alright.
Trump was president before. People didn't vote for him a second time if they wanted to improve the economy.
Still have my fingers crossed that the guy in Kentucky gunning for McConnell's seat can pull off a historic upset.
For a sizable fraction of people, when the facts conflict with their biases, they choose to reject the facts and double-down on their biases.
Racism is a very powerful belief system.
-isms of all kind are powerful. But the most powerful are those that give the believer a distant group of people for them to blame for all their troubles, which are often self-inflicted.
Are you saying that calling people racist is the worst bigotry?
False accusations of racism (and similar moral slander) is the first step in dehumanizing an outgroup.
Pretty fascinating dem vs rep split. Dems say everyone experiences racism. Reps say white people experience it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/05/20/views-of-how...
We must be reading different charts — the only one I can see has consistent numbers among Republicans (50%) but high numbers for Democrats (90%) except for Whites (20%).
So your characterization is completely wrong: Republicans mildly think everybody does, while Democrats deny white people do.
More likely something like describing Trumpism.
no they're agreeing racism is bad
From an outsider's perspective, it's to be expected given the existence of cognitive dissonance.
I just wish people would snap out of it _eventually_
May I assume you ask "for what?" rhetorically?
That tells a lot about Christian values
My Boomer mother tells me about this all the time. She said, growing up, people had absolute faith in everything the US government did or said; it was like religion. Then Vietnam happened. Specifically, the reporting around Vietnam and the number of casualties. My mother said that everyone knew someone who lost a family member in Vietnam, but the government was like, "Everything's fine."
Yeah I’m more talking things like the census. Or the report that they skipped a month of this year (inflation, jobs, I can’t recall for certain).
Time will tell how the votes will go in November. Right now the thing I'm hearing on podcasts is that a significant group of people who voted for Trump in 2024 might stay home. We'll know in less than two months.
now we get to wonder why
we're no strangers to troops dying due to ongoing conflict pretty much everywhere
so why are they seemingly hiding a small number like this?
They deny everything, no matter how low the stakes. See, for example, the reflecting pool fuss.
Indeed it's likely foolish to read into all the pure stupidity at this point
That's the point, right? If you lie about everything, nothing really matters
I think they call this "flooding the zone"
Because they are flailing? Fuel prices will decide the midterms. There are pockets of die hards but after asking plenty of trump voters, they aren't happy. As long as the democrats in the US keep the identity shit to a minimum and make gains on actual issues likr housing and healthcare they can't lose.
Thanks for the laugh. The Dems have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I never said it wasn't going to be an incompetence slugfest
You think those "losses" aren't (to a degree) calculated? They are going to try their damnedest to win enough seats to do what they want, without winning so many that they'd have to do what they must.
The greatest career move a politician can make is to take an issue that lots of people are suffering from and make sure it is never solved but people still think they are the one who can solve it. This is Bernie's whole career (among others).
Bernie is one of the few politicians that have a voting record which aligns with their rhetoric, going back decades.
Bernie never won the presidency though?
I don't dislike Bernie, I'm pointing out a trend among politicians.
Because they claimed a "flawless victory".
During conflict, which side is winning or losing is usually counted in number of body bags sent home. These tend to influence voters tremendously. Anything to tell a good story on that front.
In a conflict, the side that is winning is the side that still has the will to fight.
Roy Cohn, one of young Trump's "educators" (also tied to McCarthy's Red Scare)
He taught Trump to always take credit for the good things and blame someone else for the failures. When there is no one to blame, hide it and/or deny it loudly
In today's information environment, why would you ever admit to anything that hurts you? There seems to be no penalty for dishonesty.
I will admit that after today's CNN report and subsequent CNN ban, I wondered why he is so annoyed. And now it makes more sense.
Might be also that AI slob screw up, that allmost lead to armed confrontation with china: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-f...
It’s 2006. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
It’s 2026. The President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
Notably, the US is on precisely the opposite side of the conflict in 2026 compared to 2006.
To put it differently: its stated allies are direct lineal political and military descendants of the parties who were ostensibly its enemies in 2006, including Al-Qaeda / Jabhat Al-Nusra.
This is par for the course for US foreign policy in the region.
There's even (disputed) allegations that Bush Sr funneled money and weapons to bin Laden in opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If true, the big 2006 enemy was a 1986 ally.
Disputed by who?
“Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken”[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
I also recommend the book “The Great War for Civilisation” by Robert Fisk
Yeah, I was gonna say, as conspiracy theories go, this one is pretty much in the books at this point. Fuck man, Tom Hanks stars in a movie about it; that's about as mainstream as it gets.
That’s… hilariously not exactly new either. It can be said that our enemies and allies in 2006 were the almost exact opposite of the conflict in the 1980’s when we were funding the afghan mujahideen to fight the soviets.
So theoretically in another 20-30 years we can take a guess at who we’ll be fighting.
Canada?
There's some, uh, precedent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
Have you never been at school?
Seems exactly on the same side to me- Netanyahu was the one that pushed most for the US invasion of Iraq:
"Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel [...] also visited Washington in late 2002 to lobby for the invasion of Iraq.
Apparently referring to testimony on the Middle East that Mr. Netanyahu delivered to Congress on Sept. 12, 2002, when he was a private citizen, Mr. Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “The prime minister, as you will recall, was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush, and we all know what happened with that decision.”
Video of Mr. Netanyahu’s 2002 remarks — in which he said “I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice, it’s the right choice”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/middleeast/kerry-re...
It's 2016. Candidate Trump rails on Bush and his decision to get involved in Iraq.
He's not just a liar. He sold out his country.
I can't find the citation, but I vaguely recall him saying that if Kamala Harris was elected, she would start a war with Iran.
He said it a bunch of times about Obama.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/6-times-trump-said-obama...
The Republican President has embroiled us in an unpopular war in the Middle East and has lied about it.
If someone dies near a war, but not due to the war, is it really fair to count them as a war fatality?
It's routinely written and recounted that for most wars in history more people died from disease than combat. But we still count them all as war deaths.
If they are killed by houthi drones and not iranian drones, I would think so.
If someone on a military base with no attacks going on, got a heart attack by watching the news, probably not a war fatality.
But we don't know, so any concrete speculation is probably not very helpful.
To get more specific this often means 'suicide' which absolutely is a casualty of war given the strain of war conditions, especially given the logistics concerns and duration of tours that they are forcing right now.
Did it end up being true that the troops on that aircraft carrier had to catch rats and cook them to survive?
Are you, uh, mixing up the term "midrats" with something?
I've not seen this claim. The fact that they sent it immediately home for a port call (and had SecNavy visit for a pep talk) when the news of conditions on the Lincoln broke is probably indicative.
What logistics concerns are there? Isn't the US supposed to be one of the best at managing wartime logistics, which is why they have bases all around the world?
The fleet's HQ got wiped.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-us-naval-base-bah...
They put an alcoholic fox news host in charge of the military and he fired or otherwise forced out a ton of experienced leaders in the name of "the warrior ethos" and "high testosterone soldiers".
In a completely unrelated development the "worlds best logistics organization" is now having trouble with logistics.
Were they at that base as a (say) mechanic servicing aircraft engines for flights over the Persian Gulf? Are the only reasons why the planes (and thus him) are there is because of the hostilities with Iran, as otherwise they would be States-side?
"With Covid, not of Covid," but for military casualties. One does see something new every day.
There’s often more ambiguity than that. “Died of a COVID linked complication with COVID and other issue that is also linked to that complication.” You can’t spend endless resources deciding if something is or isn’t responsible.
Systems use arbitrary buckets like if someone commits suicide in less than six months from coming home after a war might count it, while excluding every case after six months. That’s going to misclassify cases in both directions but means you don’t need to track millions of people for decades or look through mental health details.
Obviously people with more data to work with can make a convincing case you’re wrong, but higher levels accuracy get expensive. In the end we know more than 1 million Americans died of COVID for example, how many more isn’t precisely known but ~1 million is plenty useful for decision making around the next pandemic.
It depends who is president.
Zero service members died in our just announced de facto annexation of Greenland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/18/us/politics/trump-greenla...
They probably just re-extended the existing treaty so he could call it a win.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...
"Among the agreed provisions is one stating the deal would not expire even if Greenland became an independent country in the future.
The official added that under the deal, the US has unilateral power to build additional military structures with no approval needed from Greenland or Denmark. It includes "permanent access, basing and overflights rights," the official said.
It also bans non-Nato countries from building bases in Greenland, and "bans adversaries from making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States".
The official added that under the current status quo, adversaries have been allowed to invest in Greenland's "sensitive sectors without investment screening".
The official specifically referenced Russia and China, saying it blocks them from deploying troops or making investments in "sensitive sectors".
Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c63d7lexyym1o
They already had these sorts of things (and Denmark, as a NATO member, was already pretty unlikely to permit Russian basing there).
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
"United States aircraft may fly over and land in any territory in Greenland"
"the Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, shall be entitled within such defense area and the air spaces and waters adjacent thereto... (ii) to construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment"
etc.
Sure but maybe we have them in a much more important and secure way.
I agree Denmark is/was unlikely to allow Russia or China to set up a base in Greenland (who knows about commercial exploration), but at the same time you have to remember that the EU let China into its communication systems via Hauwei, and Germany for example voluntarily became dependent on Russian gas and oil infrastructure which they have thankfully reversed. The EU isn’t immune from bad decisions or ones which threaten NATO security.
Sure, and maybe the reflecting pool is clean and sparkly.
These kinds of comments only serve to feed one’s ego. Don’t forget that
Ah, a truly classic ad hominem.
Reading that it sounds like nothing is changing in terms of US military access to Greenland, and they’re essentially just reaffirming the existing agreement which provided broad and permanent US and NATO access to Greenland.
I think interacting with Trump is like interacting with a dementia patient who also is a malignant narcissistic and pathological liar, so I imagine Danish and US staffers had to find a way to frame the agreement to him that made it sound like he had gained something major, in order to get him to shut up about the issue and stop obsessing over his conquest ideas.
US murdered 123 children in school, this has to be the top story of all world news for a year
It might be but then you have to remember Iran intentionally murdered over 30,000 of its own people including women and children so that’s actually what should be the top story of all world news for a year.
That doesn’t excuse us doing it when we’re trying to cop the moral high ground. Otherwise we’re just in a race to see who can do the worst things.
Ours was a mistake, not intentional. There is a huge difference.
"We were just very negligent" is probably not a huge comfort to the kids' families.
https://www.npr.org/2026/08/31/nx-s1-5948118/pentagon-explor...
Any given policy choice we make results in bad things happening to someone. War is just politics by other means. If we stand around and do nothing, maybe Iran kills 5000 kids for being homosexual over the next few years? If we close all the coal mines a whole entire state goes on an opioid addiction. If we don’t close the coal mines the environment suffers and people die from pollution. If we don’t kill millions of Japanese soldiers maybe China is still a Japanese colony.
Life is tough. There aren’t perfect answers. Cackling criticism from the safety of the couch doesn’t solve anything.
"We got rid of the people who prevent civilian casualties and a bunch of civilians died shortly thereafter" isn't the unpreventable random act of God you're trying to make it out to be.
It's crazy just how bullshit this war has been. At least with Iraq, you can argue that Saddam Hussein used to own WMDs in the 90s. What the hell is America doing in Iran?
We’re attempting to degrade the capability of Israel’s primary regional opponent so that Israel can continue and accelerate its ethnic cleansing and land annexations in both the Palestinian territories it administers, and in the neighboring states of Lebanon and Syria. That’s what we’re doing.
i never thought i would live to see the US support such a campaign by a clearly rogue terrorist ethnostate run by war criminals
Hitler learned his craft by copying how the USA treated Native Americans.
I recently fell into a rabbit hole of YouTube docs about wars from WW2's end till 2000
Most of those wars were mostly caused or perpetuated by the US or USSR not wanting countries to go to the other side.
In any video that shows the timeline of any war, there's scenes from the war, then it cuts to photos and scenes of politicians in the "master countries" sitting in their offices making decisions,
looking worried, on the phone, arguing, exasperated etc but otherwise comfortable, in their armchairs or on their sofas, far far removed from the people dying in the war..
...It's amazing how people keep agreeing to that.
If Congress can get its act together, it can clearly tell this lunatic to fall in line and start performing according to his Job description, otherwise boot him out. But there's no chance they are going to do it.
They politicized fallen heroes from the Afghanisation withdrawal for their campaign time during RNC 2024. Current events clearly show they don't give a F about anything but themselves.
Don't worry! Trump has a solution for that!
He's gonna change the name of the Strait of Hormuz to "Large of America". And all ships will be able to pass because freedom.
Take that Iran!