• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 hour ago

    “You can’t fool your base.”

    Why not? It’s worked for more than a decade.

    It should read “You’re hurting us now and not just the people who disagree with us, so that makes us mad!”

  • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 hours ago

    How many people have to turn on him before he’s not in charge anymore? I’ve been told that the vast majority of Americans are against him. It shouldn’t be possible in a democracy for someone to be in charge if most everybody is against him

    • Clbull@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Enough to both flip almost every Senate seat in contention at Midterms blue, and counteract all the Republican attempts at gerrymandering and electoral interference that will inevitably come.

      A gargantuan effort but not statistically impossible

      I think things will have to get truly bad by November for that to happen…

      Honestly, I think Trump is more likely to be replaced by the 25th Amendment than impeachment.

  • redlemace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    7 hours ago

    You cannot trust anything that Iran signs

    Can’t believe we got to this, but at this moment I trust the word of Iran over that of the usa.

    • luciferofastora@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Iran has a vested interest in keeping its word. For one, international diplomacy generally requires a certain trust that the other party will uphold whatever agreement was made, which is why a president arbitrarily cancelling agreements is so detrimental to a country’s international reputation and diplomatic standing. Moreover, the old Iran Deal was favourable to them: Get the global powers off their back so they can focus on local matters (much to Israel’s dismay, but that’s a separate topic I’d rather not start here).

      To break the terms would have been really fucking dumb, which is why I’m also inclined to believe that the dispute over whether long-range missiles constituted a breach was genuine, and not just a “try to get away with it” tactic.

      Of course, as we know, the US ended up going back on their word, Iran had to follow through on their counter-threat, things are shit now and it turns out waging war is kinda expensive so now they’re back to the negotiating table.

      And I’m pretty sure that Iran will, again, get a solution worth sticking to. So yes, I agree: I trust Iran to be more rational than Pedonald Tantrump

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      16 hours ago

      yup. I will never understand how he gets people to vote against their own interests time and time and time again. whether it’s ‘conservatives’ like Kaitlan Jenner or miners or farmers or poor white shits, they’re so obsessed with their own hate and “i got mine fuck you” attitude don’t just step on the rake, they jump on it with both feet and a sadistic grin.

      it’s depressing as fuck what a drug hate is.

  • mcv@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    “You cannot trust anything that Iran signs”

    Can you trust anything the US signs?

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I was actually wondering if Iran violated the agreement passed with Obama. As far as I know, they didn’t. They had checks from the IAEA to make sure they were not trying to get nukes. They respected their deal.

      It was torn apart by Trump for no reason other than his hatred of Obama and put back sanctions for no reason. So the US is the part that violated the agreement, and Trump is the reason he can’t get any good deal with Iran because now, they don’t trust him.

      Actually, Trump hardly respect any deal he signs…

      • luciferofastora@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        50 minutes ago

        I was actually wondering if Iran violated the agreement passed with Obama.

        There was no good reason to violate it for Iran. The threat of nukes was leverage against the global powers, but it doesn’t have the means to meaningfully to challenge the great powers. Iran just wanted them off its back.

        Iran’s interests were local and the deal enabled it to pursue them by lifting the sanctions. To break the terms of the JCPOA would have been diplomatic suicide, brought back the sanctions and ended a quite benficial arrangement.

        Hence, Iran went to great lengths to demonstrate its compliance. It wanted to make sure that the world knew it held up its end and would leave it to its local business, so long as they didn’t become a threat on the global stage.

        Israel, of course, took umbrage to that local business (given it was supporting their enemies) and thus had a reasonable interest in seeing that deal broken up.

      • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Trump respects no deals. He has been like this his whole life. His mentor was a mafioso type, Roy Cohn. Trump likes to act like a tough guy gangster

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      16 hours ago

      he could have left JCPOA alone and iranian reactors would be observed and regulated. No need to murder children, no reason to get dragged into a military adventure that will alienate the region and murder children for generations, but no, it was an Obama thing, it had to go.

      He’s so stupid and racist he couldn’t even leave something that benefited the US and region alone because a black man who humiliated him by being competent was part of the agreement.

      He’s such a pathetic shitbag.

    • MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I wonder what their alternative is…

      We signed numerous agreements with the Soviet Union throughout the near half-century Cold War and they were a much more serious, direct threat than Iran is.

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Oh good grief. So some of them don’t like his Iran deal, that’s not ‘turning on him’. They would all still 100% vote for him and will vote for whoever he tells them to, as we’ve been seeing in the repub primaries. They’ll still fall for any scam he throws at them and are perfectly happy to have their taxpayer dollars go to billionaires and grifters while their own benefits are dismantled and their rights taken away.

  • WanderWisley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Doesn’t matter if they turn on him, if a peaceful agreement is made all Donny has to do is give a speech declaring absolute total victory then they will be back on his crusty Cheeto dick just in time to start a new war with Cuba and Greenland. And right after that Israel will continue bombing Iran out of spite and to get America to eventually do a full scale invasion just in time for Donny and the GOP to attempt to stop the midterms from taking place.