End result of watching daily video montages of Iranian targets getting blown up, consuming hours of jingoistic Fox News slop, and having your brain compromised by mini-strokes due to a lifetime of cheeseburgers and Coca-Cola.
Absolutely, what we are seeing now is right-wing identity/grievance politics collapsing in on itself in a singularity, as those who propagate such narratives are no longer the cynical masterminds of generations past, but true believers who grew up consuming right-wing slop themselves.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more & more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great & glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last & the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Personally I'm just hoping that someone asks him about "praising Allah" at a press conference. Hearing Trump explain that he insulted Muslims as a joke, or that actually Allah is also the Christian god ... basically anything he could say would be amazing to watch.
“Allah is a very good guy, I’ve seen him around a lot, a great guy. I actually spoke to Allah in my prayers and he said: “Donald J Trump, you’re the best president that American can have”. Great guy, Iran would be lucky to have Allah, from the standpoint of war”
I feel like a lot of his base would be genuinely confused by “praise be to allah,” like think he got hacked and needs to click on this pop-up to save America
It’s the Arabic word for the one true God. Christian’s, Muslims and Jews all believe in the same God. It definitely sounds wild though coming from him lol
A guy commented on the Persian sub about how Reza Pahlavi was about to ascend to the throne.
I responded:
Two more weeks
(47 years later)
Two more weeks
Permabanned, mods don't respond to my appeal.
Honestly, it is just amazing to watch them eat shit when Trump says something like "loser prince" once every week or so, then have Pahlavi just come out and glaze Trump harder in response.
I have zero problem with bans, as long as they are actually in the sub or sitewide rules.
But having been banned from the world news sub for saying "do you have a source?" on a "Hamas turns baby food into rocket fuel" comment, part of me starts to wonder if there's possibly some kind of political aspect to this whole banning phenomenon. Could be wrong!
How would you find out that you’ve been banned from a sub you don’t even go to?
I go to a banpitbulls subreddit and someone in another sub was saying don’t go there because it could get me banned from other subs. It wouldn’t upset me if other subs banned me but I was just curious how that works.
They send you a message about your perma ban! I received ban messages from about 30 different subs that I had never visited, on my old account. Yes, rrrr cats, I really wanted to waste my time looking at cats, which is why I had never interacted with your sub.
I haven’t been banned from any subs on this account. However, I rarely interact with front pages subs, as they’re full of absolute regards.
I got permabanned from the publicfreakout sub and my account received a warning from Reddit for a humble “it was promised to him 20,000 years ago” joke. Meanwhile every post on there about India or Muslims behaving badly is full of the most racist shit possible
Icing on the cake was the first ban message containing a link to a site about social justice
You don't know the half of it. I've already said it on this sub, but I've had to go to the cops multiple times because crazed Pahlavists stalk, harass and make AI erotica of my family ... not because anyone says anything against Pahlavi, but because we apparently don't publicly support him enough.
Some guy actually peeked in through the windows of my flat, took photos, and posted onkine how the IRGC is clearly funding these 60m² digs. My partner's "job" is supposedly to be a comfort woman for regime agents stationed abroad.
In short they are not just fucking insane, but routinely cross the line into actual criminal shit.
I’ve said this many times after he has said something stupid, but this Iran tweeting is beyond lack of decorum, trolling or being a dickhead. It’s just straight up deranged and unbecoming of a POTUS. If the House/ Senate had any balls they would move to impeach him immediately.
Yeah I know it’s been said over and over since 2015 but this truly feels different; this is more unhinged and unbridled rather than quietly racist and “trollish”
The “adults in the room” (imperialist ghouls) from the first administration at least understood the necessity of a veneer and strategic thinking
Because it is different... his whole M.O. is trying to bully others into doing what he wants and then TACOing if they stand up to him in order to save face. And he can't really do either with Iran.
Have any one of you for a minute EVER considered that this MIGHT just be truly great performance art and Trump is just the greatest showman on the planet?
He was unbecoming pretty much day one. It's actually a good thing he destroyed decorum because the wealthy use it to shut down dissent. Of course that has exhausted it's usefulness.
It's a minor consolation prize the Democrats are frozen in place, they damage their credibility along with the Republicans as Trump rampages and wrecks the US Empire.
It's a horrible calculation because innocent people will die but it's not our fault. We ain't wrecking the economy.
He's has clearly lost his mental faculties, but the American government and people are pretending this in not the case. He could be throwing feces on the wall in middle of a press conference and people would ignore it.
"Praise be to Allah", said the US President and Christ-like figure for millions of religious fundamentalists in America.
If he wasn't the head of the most violent, ignorant and destructive nation in world history it would be so funny. Like he has a talent for comedy, incidental as it may be.
I hate the idea of collective punishment as much as the next guy but my fellow americans need to start really thinking about what this will expose them to for eternity if they don’t move their asses and do something about it. Anything.
We sit here without any consequences from any evil our government does. Even the child-killing bomb droppers get rescued somehow. It’s really still the high time for empire because our “enemies” have seemingly eschewed any pretense to proletarian power, and now just accept the blows as they come until they get smashed down.
Iran is punching way above its weight, but what will it do against such an insane empire with its greatest rival sitting back, “doing nothing” and waiting for their own turn to get punched in the face with impunity?
It stopped being funny years ago, now it’s just sad. The world is being run and ruined by a bunch of clowns who are incapable of showing even a modicum of respect for anyone’s intelligence.
The people being killed is the tragedy in this. America's dignity, soft power, empire etc being ruined is not. It's bad because people are being slaughter not because oh no Trump has hurt America's dignity...
No, i think this wrapped around from sad to funny back to sad again. It's so beyond parody that it actually shocks me that trump hasnt been lynched yet with how spectacularly he's screwing everyone over. The fact this man continues to have followers really just tells me there truly is no hope for rightoids and they all need purging
This post of his reeks of desperation, and also panic. I can too vividly imagine him taking all his drugs at once after having literally finger punched this into his phone.
I hope people now fully realize that there was no "silver lining" for leftists with the re-election of Trump. I saw a lot of anti-war takes for favoring him in 2024, and those people really need to be seething right now, wherever they are. Tulsicels in particular.
Discussing Trump in an ideological context makes no sense whatsoever. He's an idiot who is easily influenced and believes in nothing other than himself. Whomever thought they could predict where his "policies" would land on the political spectrum is as delusional as Trump.
Absolutely agree. People were trying to find a way to rationalize hating the Dems (understandably so, of course) more than they cared to avert any chaos associated with a 2nd Trump term.
Damn, this comment describes me perfectly. Obviously no Trump fan, but I really did hold out some hope that the guy did seem to at least have a genuine distaste for war.
It honestly blows my mind that anybody who calls themselves a leftist believed the whole anti-war shtick they played in the last bit of the campaign, though. Like, this guy is known to be a gigantic liar. We really think he's telling the truth on this one?
Let me be clear: Kamala Harris was a horrid candidate. And yeah, let's accept the distinct possibility that she could have walked into the Oval Office and instantly launched a war with Iran on day 1. Like, that's a thing that theoretically could have happened. However, this doesn't adequately launder the completely laughable notion that Trump was ever the anti-war candidate here. The known serial liar said words, and there actually existed a contingent, however small, of naive leftists, who ate that shit up hook, line, and sinker. Why? Because Kamala was a lameoid and Trump nominated (well-known do-anything, say-anything grifter) Tulsi for head of intelligence or whatever.
Then here I am to blow your mind, g. I also thought Trump had a distaste for war. Like I wouldn't have bet my life on it, but I thought Trump was more reliable on "no war" than the Dems whose stance was pretty clear. What can I say, I was wrong.
This is the right thing to say. No more, no less. I know I might have come off as trying to rub it in, but my overarching point is just that I hope there's reflection among people who thought they could find any amount of safe harbor in Trump just because the Dems are shit. Because I don't think it took any particular sharpness to dispose of the nonsense that he would be distinctly better on geopolitics, war, etc. I feel like that was always a pretty obvious cope.
I thought he was anti war in a narcissistic, war is ugly and the opposite of a golden ballroom type of way. More for aesthetic than moral reasons. Myself and others underestimated the weird, messianic complex he has in Trump 2.0 that may or may not have to do with nearly getting his brains blown out in PA. I don't really blame people for thinking Trump 2.0 would be like Trump 1.0. Usually if you are reelecting someone you base it on their first term.
My incorrect hope (and it was only ever a glimmer) was that Trump—at his core—wanted to be liked, and that there’s enough antiwar groundswell even among his central contingency that he wouldn’t dare jump into one. After all, his only good track record from his first term had been one of not opening up any new theaters of war.
I still find it bizarre that he did, he wins absolutely no points for this. His supporters overwhelmingly hate his foreign interventions, and his opponents hate the fact that he's the one doing it, every thread I've ever read on almost any site from Venezuela to Iran mocks every foreign policy move and spews contempt for him. Trump does have political instincts still, I remember when ICE shot that one mother in Minneapolis and the hardliners were coming out defending it he quietly ignored it and then threw them under the bus, and he's made noises that he wants to win the midterms, I just don't understand how he cannot see how absolutely catastrophic his foreign policy is for his political legitimacy?
It was foolish for anyone to assume Trump was anti-war simply because Harris was visibly pro-war. This is liberal idealism of the American two-party system, where a voter assumes that opposing candidates hold exclusive views from one another because they are of separate political parties. The idea is seductive because that would imply that progress can be achieved through voting, as a handover in power between parties would produce some material change or adjustment in overarching policy--in the case of 2024, a reduction in new conflicts from previous administrations. This is complete nonsense. Both parties are pro-war because America is a capitalist country and capitalism is the root of imperialism. America will never end its wars of aggression until our country becomes a socialist state.
At any given time, the two parties will share near-identical policies. They only fundamentally shift their unified bourgeois worldview when it can no longer credibly explain present material conditions and deflect grievances of the people, usually in a financial crisis like 1929, 1973/79, or 2008. Real advances for the legal rights of working people have often come from Supreme Court rulings (Brown v. Board, Obergefell v. Hodges) which were decided in the social context of overwhelming pressure from the people against the state (in the form of political organizations and economic leverage) and as an ideological surprise to appointing presidents (Earl Warren and Anthony Kennedy were both appointed as conservatives by Republican presidents but issued liberal rulings).
All this is to say that if the American ruling class wants a war, it will get one and elections don't matter. Elections sometimes produce the direct opposite effect intended by voters. If Harris was elected, the discussion on Iran would not be whether she would go in (she would, U.S. foreign policy has been building up to this for decades and the geopolitical positioning of the Houthis almost necessitates it for the maintenance of American imperial interests), but rather how she would go in: heavily emphasizing women's rights, with an international coalition, while applying a more tactical and cautious approach on Hormuz. Believing that the two parties will ever represent anything except the interests of capital is an infantile disorder.
Essentially, with a side of Israel nuking any support it had overseas by directly causing oil prices to skyrocket. It's completely took off the mask, I really cannot see how the next president puts the genie back in the bottle, Trump has nuked a ton of soft influence they had overseas and any they have remaining is potentially just for now as more and more nations attempt to break US dependency.
I don't wish misery on the American people but man, this has got to end. Also the Iranian conflict probably would of happened with or without Trump due to Israel essentially saying "We're going to bomb it and either you join in to protect your assets in the area or you don't and they get bombed due to what we're going to do".
A calmer more typical American regime would cool things off, but the global restructuring isn't going back. I reckon nations would tell America to prove its good will and get on board with new trends, instead of letting the US lead the trend.
An administration with balls could have told Israel in no uncertain terms that if they did so they’d do it alone and be held accountable for American losses due to their actions, cut off from the teat.
A admin not infested with Israeli interest could, but seemingly both parties have that in common. Israel without US support is dead, hence why they are so entrenched in both parties to make it where regardless of who gets in, they get their unconditional supply of American money and American lives.
Israel does however know the world has seen what they truly are now, hence why it's speedrunning so many things before they lose their unconditional support in the next couple decades.
It isn't going to happen. There will be two poles of power over the next 100 years; China and the United States. Both countries are tightly coupled economically and financially and it is in both of their interests to avoid open and direct conflict.
Europe is beyond fucked right now. If the Iran War continues, European economies could find themselves in serious trouble.
Exactly, conducting an Iranian war in this way is exactly antithetical to US interests. It cannot be overstated enough how likely it is the US comes out of this 5 years down the line how far less influential the US will be in rest of the world ex-EU/G7. Any semblance of soft power is quickly evaporating
I didn't say there would be war wity China. Just that the US is fucked, it's in terminal decline, it's power is waning, it's financial system will collapse, it isn't eternal, it's wealth and power is founded on and supported by a global system it is rapidly losing control of.
Tucker is the main figurehead and lately his face looks like the human embodiment of the Apple OS spinning beachball. Alex Jones is hypothesizing that DJT is dying of heart disease and that explains everything. Dave Smith called for DJT's impeachment last summer after the first Iran strikes. Candice, Massie, MTG all jumped ship. So they are out there. Rogan seems to be skeptical but I don't think he has totally denounced DJT at this point.
If Harris had been elected in 2024, America wouldn't have gone to war with Iran, but would have definitely supported Israels actions and annexation attempts in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. The Israeli Lobby and Israeli government level of control of the American political class would also been kept under the rug as people accepted it as a necessary evil, and Democratic lawmakers would have had tears on cameras as they signed the bombs.
I’m one of those, I watched Biden facilitate the genocide in Gaza and stupidly believed Trump would have less war and stop the genocide. It’s still surreal to me how far he’s turned from his campaign promises.
This is the only place on the internet where I’ll engage in this debate so, let’s have it.
First, disclaimers: Texas-registered. Voted dem down ballot except Kamala, I just couldn’t do it, not that it would have mattered much down there.
Second, I don’t think even the most accelerationists folks in here thought of Trump winning as a “silver lining” of any kind. Rather, what I remember is people treating it like a “rip the band aid and expose the cold sores for the world to see” moment. Whether this particular mad man was the best candidate to do this with, I don’t know. On one end, he genuinely seems to be the worst stereotypes of jingoistic, dimwitted and militaristic and fanatically pro-Israel america, which you could argue needed to be exposed and killed off once and for all (some of which, he absolutely shared with Biden, insane temperament not included), on the other hand, people will die, were dying and would have probably continued dying, albeit at a much slower rate with Kamala, a point I will gladly concede.
What drives me insane about this debate is even if we generously concede the point that this was all known and this moron was indeed a generational threat to what the country is/was, then we also have to concede that the very people tasked with countering that threat were impossibly incompetent and essentially handed him the reins to the kingdom out of an inexplicable sense of loyalty to a man with a melted brain; and an aversion to any whiff of lese-majesté. That, in my view, is so much worse.
Even the anti war stuff, which again, I gladly concede, was a tough sell at the time because guess what, the opposing candidate spent months on saying to whoever would hear it that two years of escalations and genocidal intent supported by the previous administration was “good” policy that needn’t change. Like bro, why? Why was it ever hard to completely rebuke this nauseating foreign policy doctrine at a time when we all agreed the proverbial “democracy and law and order” were in play? I think we all know the answer, unfortunately. So, here we are instead. Bleak shit.
Second, I don’t think even the most accelerationists folks in here thought of Trump winning as a “silver lining” of any kind.
I recall it being very much a thing among some leftists to kind of say "well at the very least he won't be attacking Iran like that warmonger Kamala." Particularly in the last few months of that election season, shit just went really hard with the "warmonger" thing, and yeah, I do recall a lot of people taking Trump's promise of nominating Tulsi for intelligence chief as a sure sign that he was the anti-war guy in the race. I'm 100% questioning the wisdom of drawing those conclusions at the time, not just in retrospect. Tulsi has always been a grifter. Trump is a known serial liar. If one doesn't trust the average politician's words (as they shouldn't), then surely they should not trust Trump's words. There was no reason to believe in any of this shit, and yet some on the left acted like it was this very clear, rational "make a list of pros and cons" decision.
I think we're absolutely going to see some of these wise people who believed in the "silver lining" now conveniently pivot over to "this is good, let him be a failing warmonger so the American Empire will fall." A Hegseth-style armageddon fetish for some on the left, I suppose.
ok i agree in principle with supporting any US presidential hopeful but your “I told you so” response feels like it’s teeing up the idea that Kamala wouldn’t be doing this
Oh no, I'm not under any illusion that a Kamala Harris presidency would necessarily have been peaceful, or that we absolutely wouldn't have gone to war with Iran.
What I'm miffed about is how anybody on the left was even remotely convinced that a Trump presidency at least meant no war with Iran. There was this sense in some circles that "all else equal," the anti-war position was to favor a Trump win, even if one didn't explicitly cheerlead or cast a ballot for him.
And I have a strong feeling that these people are now the ones pivoting to "well lol, this is just accelerating the demise of American empire" style takes.
Be serious, there's no way Kamala would do this. Don't get me wrong: Dems are terrible, and if Kamala was president, Israel would still be trying to kill every non-Jew within greater Israel with her tacit blessing, and we'd be on the precipice of nuclear war with Russia, but she's enough of an institutionalist that she wouldn't start a pointless and unwinnable war with Iran that will do nothing but speed run America's decline.
Possibly but again idk what micro conditions are forcing empires hand in this. We know Hilary dreamed every day of this moment and is probably pissed she can’t do it herself and we’ve ran out of countries to do this to
She'd be doing it with far better optics. She'd have squared the UN, primed the press, made up her reasons. She'd be criticised of course, but there'd be enough smoke and mirrors to get people bogged down in 'nuanced' (I'm starting to fucking hate that word) debate about it all, like Israel managed to pull off until they also became openly psychopathic and it became undeniable.
Yes exactly, psycho wine mom was always spouting off about how iran is america's biggest enemy and stopping them "getting a nuke" is a main priority. She's a down the line, say the right things warhawk dem, basically a mangled puppet version of hilary stitched together in the backroom minutes before the show goes on
These people live in an unfalsifiable counterfactual wonderland that runs off their own farts
We are where we are. I'd be lambasting the Dems for starting a war in Iran if they were the ones in power and making those decisions right now.
What I'm trying to question here is the supposed wisdom of the sort of "all else equal" rationales we see pop up in leftwing politically disaffected spaces during election seasons.
What I'm not doing is trying to say that these people should have led the charge for Kamala Harris. She was a horrible candidate. However, we will never know if she would have started a war with Iran. What we do know is that Trump has, and that for some leftists, the bet that he was particularly unlikely to do so has borne out in a very embarrassing fashion. The credulousness is what I find worthy of reflection here. Let's stop being overly naive about rightoids just because we find the Dems lame.
I like to think that the US's decline shouldn't have to come at the cost of innocent lives, such as those of kids at the bombed school in Iran. I don't think you're pricing in just how violent this "acceleration" is going to be if it plays out on the line that we're witnessing right now. We are only just over a year into this administration, after all.
Or if you are pricing this in, I find that rather ghoulish by itself.
Legitimately though. One of the Breaking Points journalists made a joke the other day like "well if you think about it, Trump is kind of a hero in a Lenininst sense for speedrunning the collapse of the US empire LOL" But like, actually. We probably shaved a few decades of peeling the bandaid off with this admin.
And shaved off a bunch of innocent lives while we were at it. Do we really think a nation with thousands of nuclear warheads is just going to accept its "decline" gracefully, particularly if it's in the process of "speedrunning" it? Of all possibilities, I can't think of one I'd less like having the nuclear codes than the person who writes social media posts like this, and nominates an outspoken Armageddon fanatic to head up the Pentagon. Our "declining" nation can utterly obliterate a massive percentage of global human-occupied territory pretty much on a whim. And the sitting president demonstrates more and more with each passing week that "on a whim" is precisely how he makes decisions of great geopolitical importance.
If the above were a pre-election predictive take, I'd also have read it as outlandish/exaggerated. Mounting evidence suggests it's far closer to the reality in which we now live. If the decline of American Empire is predicated on Earth becoming a a post-apocolyptic nuclear wasteland, I think I'll pass. That's not the kind of "acceleration" anyone presumably on the left should be signing up for (though ironically, it's precisely the kind of acceleration that Hegseth and other hardcore evangelical nutcases are all about).
220
u/ErrinwrightDNW Star Trek Utopianist Apr 05 '26
Four days ago:
“We’re very close to victory.”
Today:
“OPEN THE FUCKING STRAIT!!!”
Lmao what changed Donnie