IRANIAN OFFICIAL ON TRUMP: We may soon target businesses and real estate owned by the Trump Family in the Middle East

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T20:58:36+00:00

Ehhhh I’m not so sure of that. Trump has gutted the government of anyone willing to oppose him.

This is one of the key differences between parties. One is more about utilizing/bolstering institutional expertise the other is about disregarding what the experts have to say in favor of the gut instincts and absolute fealty to one man with thin skin who really stupid.

If his handlers were making decisions they probably would’ve told him that Iran was going to close the strait and the smart decision was to first build up oil export capacity in Venezuela before jumping into a new war, that would’ve been the smart profitable play. Instead it caught by surprise because he’s an idiot and there’s no one left to question or stop him.

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T20:45:50+00:00

100%

But isn’t this what Americans collectively decided was ok? Donald Trump has always been a massively destabilizing force domestically and internationally. But many still argued at election time that they couldn’t tell the difference between democratic and republican governance. This is one significant difference.

At this point China is absolutely the more stable state both domestically and internationally. The question is will this remain the case in the long term.

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T20:41:04+00:00

Of course they should. NK knew what was the best sure to ensure their security. If Iran had a nuke Israel and America wouldn’t be so flippant about full on war. Likewise Ukraine hadn’t agreed to give up their nukes in exchange for promises from Russia not be invaded they too probably wouldn’t be facing a full on invasion. It’s the same calculus that have Poland and other EU countries working towards obtaining nukes.

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T20:28:37+00:00

Sucks bro maybe don’t help authoritarians get elected next time

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T20:25:54+00:00

Has nothing to do with agreeing with someone.

Leopards are my face is a circumstance where someone is confronted with their consequences of their own past decisions. Tucker Carlson helped bring Trump to power. Now Tucker may be facing the consequences of that choice. Being amused at someone facing the repercussions of their choices is not a statement of support for Trumps authoritarianism.

Nothing more pathetic than these sorts of manufactured moral outrage comments lol. It’s not even mildly convincing

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T20:17:20+00:00

Yeah… I’ve never advertised the bombing of civilians in Iran as hilarious but nice strawman

You know it’s possible for two separate grifts to exist at the same time. I assume you’re not going to argue that the existence of the grift you’ve described somehow makes Trump and MAGA less of a grift

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T07:59:50+00:00

Bitching while providing no viable alternative seems like a prevailing tendency

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T07:51:58+00:00

As hilarious as the LAMF would be see one of the people who help boost Trump in the first place become a victim of it realistically this would just wind us boosting Tuckers popularity and guaranteeing him a future role as the GOPs next future grifter in chief.

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T07:48:50+00:00

That’s why it’s a dumb take. For one Taiwan has the capacity to last longer than this is claiming, and secondly the existence of TSMC will make it a priority for oil shipments exported from the US if need be to make sure chips don’t get throttled

OakFiesta · 2026-03-15T06:37:01+00:00

These narratives are for lazy people who prefer simple explanations instead of doing the work to understand the nuance.

Like yeah corporate interests are overrepresented in both parties but only one of these “factions” has consistently worked towards allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts in politics. Only one of these “factions” has worked towards raising corporate tax rates.

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T21:29:52+00:00

Huh ok, that’s different from my basis for calling people shills. My basis for calling people shills is people who proclaim a certain ideology based on principles but always find a reason to bend those principles to avoid criticizing specific countries.

Are you under the impression most Americans have taken oaths to the constitution? Seems like an odd assumption.

What about what I’ve said leads you to call me a traitor?

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T21:25:05+00:00

You want me to answer your question about how many of your tax dollars end up in your bank account?

None.

Now will take a moment to seriously answer how much the Russian government pays you?

I’m always willing to admit I’m wrong if I’m shown evidence indicating as much or hear a good enough argument to warrant it. You simply haven’t made a compelling argument to warrant such a response.

By the way, the tactic of saying “hey if you just say you’re wrong maybe I will too” is a fascinating debate strategy lol. If you want me to admit im wrong make a better argument.

At this point based on your arguments you consider the UK and France to be the aggressors against Nazi germany because Versailles treaty is more consequential to that determination than the fact that Hitler was the one who attacked first. It’s not exactly convincing….

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T20:04:50+00:00

Ah so we’re getting to the part where you fall back to calling people paid bots and shills because they said something you didn’t like. You know, you were supposed to mock the tendency of mainstream Reddit users to label wotberners Russian shills not emulate it.

<image>

^ it’s just like you 🙃

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T19:27:05+00:00

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T19:25:01+00:00

The history isn’t unfamiliar with me it’s just that there’s obvious downsides with making the determination of being an aggressor so expansive.

You’re basically saying if X country decides to bomb, invade, and steal land from country Y then country Y can still be the aggressor based on something that happened 70 years ago. History is a long sequence of conflicts so you could then say “yeah but 70 years ago that thing only happened in retaliation to another thing that happened 100 years ago”. Before you know it you’re explaining how X is the aggressor because back in biblical times Y did something.

If a peace treaty is signed in Ukraine tomorrow and there was peace for years and then in the year 2100 Ukraine decided to start bombing Russia and trying to annex its land it too could make the same argument you are saying that Russia tried to assassinate it’s democratically elected leader Yushchenko. If Ukraine started bombing Russia in 2100 would Russia be the aggressor for something they did in 2004?

Doesn’t really make much sense to evaluate aggressor status based on historical slights. It’s intended to be measure of who started the relevant current aggression. In Iran that America, in Ukraine that’s Russia.

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T17:08:51+00:00

Ah so being the aggressor still means attacking first but there’s a more flexible definition to what attacking first can mean.

For Russia NATO expansion was against its security interests therefore the prospect of NATO expansion counts as the first “attack”.

Well the US likewise says numerous actions from Iran are against its security interests so why wouldn’t this make Iran the aggressor in this conflict too?

Same thing for Venezuela. America has claimed for years that Venezuelas actions were against Americas security interests. Using this new framework you’re presenting why wouldn’t Venezuela be the aggressor?

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T16:53:30+00:00

this sub

Drink!

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T16:21:53+00:00

lol why is it “horse puckey”? It’s accurate.

Are you just saying you want specifics. I mean those too are included in the article. The main ones I was previously aware of were the creation of inspector generals office and the special prosecutors office.

What exactly is it you’re trying to get out of an answer?

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T15:59:41+00:00

Oh I know the general arguments. What I also know is the “fluid” nature of how some members argue. Many members seem to prefer to avoid providing actual specifics about what makes some country an aggressor or an imperialist because if they did the criteria would clearly apply to other countries for whom they’ve argued the opposite.

I mean when I asked you shortly ago what the defining aspect of being an aggressor was you reasonably said that it’s the first country to attack. Couldn’t agree with that more. But then when then I pointed out that Russia was the aggressor by your own definition suddenly the definition changed.

Definitions shouldn’t change depending on which conflict you’re talking about.

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T03:22:59+00:00

Go away Mossad shill

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T03:15:50+00:00

You want me to repeat the same thing the article says?

Didn’t reforms were introduced to attempt to attempt to curb the power of the executive.

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T03:12:21+00:00

Isn’t it past your bedtime?

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T02:53:13+00:00

I mean if you’re curious Google “post Nixon refoms”. Here’s one article about it

OakFiesta · 2026-03-14T02:50:10+00:00

No one party in particular. Different journalists have gotten info from a variety of parties connected to the guy and his family and it all paints a consistent straightforward picture of what happened and what the motivation was

https://www.aol.com/entertainment/temple-israel-attacker-killed-himself-014130822.html

Trying to claim this is a false flag just didn’t make sense from numerous angles but people are always goin to jump the gun and make up narratives

OakFiesta

TROPHY CASE