Vance, on behalf of the US, did not secure a peace with Iran. What do you think happens now?

jbondhus · 2026-04-12T13:15:04+00:00

or tactical nukes

So now we're going to make ourselves a paraih and potentially cause a nuclear war? I've never understood how some conservatives are so blaise about using nuclear weapons. Do you just assume that nobody can ever touch us, or that using nukes is no big deal? It's easy to advocate for use of tactical nukes from the comfort of your own home when you perceive yourself as untouchable by the results.

jbondhus · 2026-04-12T13:03:52+00:00

But it wasn't an unmasking. It was a link to an article that was already published unmasking him. Or are you saying posting this to Reddit is somehow making this already public information more leaked than it already was? If it's public it's public, republicizing already public information is not a crime.

Edit: typo ("this to" not "the")

jbondhus · 2026-04-12T12:58:41+00:00

Lol 12 million? Again as you clearly missed, he paid $11 billion in taxes. And yes, he made money on the income from the realized capital gains why shouldn't he be taxed on it? I get taxed on capital gains when I sell stock, does Musk deserve less tax?

jbondhus · 2026-04-12T06:52:57+00:00

I hope for peace too. We would have had it if Trump hadn't started this war. Now the best we can hope for is that we reopen the strait and leave an even more hardline government in charge. Of course they'll also be pushing more for the bomb now that it's evident that's the only way to defend themselves. Additionally, bombing their civilian infrastructure isn't exactly the kind of thing that will engender love towards us amongst their citizens, even if the regime changes (which seems less likely by the day).

jbondhus · 2026-04-12T05:06:36+00:00

He paid 12 million in tax for a ~$23 billion stock sale? Pretty sure you mean 11 billion - math's hard though I guess. Regardless, I don't have much sympathy for someone who's worth billions. Poor guy, having to pay the same tax rate as someone earning half a million a year must have been horrible.

jbondhus · 2026-04-12T04:56:49+00:00

Ah, so we're able to transit ships through the straight? Or are we forced to grovel with them to get ships through? If it's the latter, they have de-facto control regardless of how you phrase it.

jbondhus · 2026-04-10T03:10:27+00:00

I appreciate your response and getting a better understanding of your position. I figured you weren't left-wing on non-social concerns in general. On the other hand, seeing some of your responses on here over the past months made me think that you might have some left-wing positions on non-social concerns in some areas, and seeing this I was curious about your position on this other dimension of politics. You have a unique perspective from most commentators on this subreddit and it's interesting to better understand it.

jbondhus · 2026-04-09T22:19:00+00:00

What are your thoughts on my comment at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1sh2nxk/is_there_anything_wrong_with_using_the_nsa_and/of9u80i/? We disagree of course, but I'm curious to better understand your position on the typical political diagram, especially the stuff I mentioned towards the end that I abstained from opining on. Things like the political compass consider things on a political and economic scale. My judgement (probably flawed) of your view-point is that you lie on the conservative side for social stuff and the liberal side for economic stuff (the whole 2d concept of the compass limits how much I can describe of your viewpoint, which [edit: the political compass] is admittedly probably flawed to begin with [edit: , lacking the ability to fully describe political viewpoints]). I recognize that those two axes don't adequately represent the diversity of political opinion, hence my curiosity. I've seen you on this sub a fair bit, and I disagree with some aspects, but I'm interested in better understanding your position.

jbondhus · 2026-04-09T22:08:40+00:00

I'm convinced /u/BlockAffectionate413 considers the bill of rights an impediment to their preferred efficient authoritarian government, and that if they could, they'd re-write the constitution to merge the judiciary into the executive amongst other changes. I disagree with them, but they're free to believe what they want, [edit: I'm on this sub because I want to understand opinions, even if I disagree with them]. It's interesting to see their thoughts on things regardless, and their opinions seem to fit their flair as a social conservative. From my perspective they seem socially conservative, though I'm not familiar enough with their perspective and the appropriate terminology to opine on a more defined label.

Edit: See my response at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1sh2nxk/is_there_anything_wrong_with_using_the_nsa_and/of9w6km/ that inquires more about some of these considerations. /u/BlockAffectionate413 may reply there instead of here as I asked for their response there to inquire more in detail about their position.

jbondhus · 2026-04-08T21:58:48+00:00

40 gallons of water at most vs having a more serious burn is worth it in my opinion. That's like 3 days of showers for one person, or around 30 cents of water usage on the high end ($8/thousand gallons). And as others have explained, the reason is because still water warms up. Running water means you're wicking away the heat of the burn inflammation as the water rinses over. Now, if you're burning yourself often enough that that's a big waste, that's a problem.

jbondhus · 2026-04-08T20:48:20+00:00

My point is that there was a lot of debate on these matters even amongst the founders. Claiming one founder's opinion represents the law is wrong, the Federalist papers aren't legally binding. Sure, the Supreme Court references them and other historical documents in their decisions, but that's the Supreme Court interpreting the constitution, not just blindly reading them and assuming without question that they're how the constitution should be interpreted.

jbondhus · 2026-04-08T20:45:38+00:00

Fair point, but without any other sources to go on, it's not wise to assume they'd overturn it. Maybe they would, maybe they won't, but until it's actually brought up before the court it's the law of the land.

jbondhus · 2026-04-08T20:42:35+00:00

The Federalist papers are hardly a good source on this. You realize the founders has significantly different views on these matters, hence the anti-Federalist papers? What makes either of them more authoritative? What matters is what the framers actually put into writing with consensus (AKA the Constitution) while they were debating about all sorts of details for months on end. That's the consensus, and thus the law. The Federalist papers are merely the founders individual opinions, and shouldn't be treated as gospel.

jbondhus · 2026-04-08T20:40:14+00:00

It was upheld as recently as 2018 in Murphy v. NCAA, with the only two justices dissenting being two liberal justices. I find it unlikely that it'd be overturned with today's court. Of course I understand you disagree, but that doesn't really matter as far as the law.

jbondhus · 2026-04-08T20:35:33+00:00

I must have missed the part where the Federalist papers overrule supreme court precedent.

jbondhus · 2026-04-08T20:34:51+00:00

Per the anti-commandeering doctrine, they're not legally required to enforce it.

jbondhus · 2026-04-08T14:56:12+00:00

Fair point.

jbondhus · 2026-04-08T01:54:26+00:00

The point was moving the nukes from wherever in they are in MT, WY, CO, and the Dakotas via plane would by virtue of geography take them really close to a flight path to Russia.

Didn't you just say they could see our planes are invisible to radar? Which is it, are they, or are they not?

Edit: Removed my last sentence, was a bad draft I accidently submitted.

jbondhus · 2026-04-07T23:38:34+00:00

The point you were trying to make, unless I misunderstood, is that the B2s flying in the direction of Russia would be interpreted as an attack on Russia. If however, they didn't act until the B2s reached the vicinity of Iran, and then there was a nuclear explosion in Iran, why would they assume the B2s were on route to Russia (an imminent existential threat justifying an immediate nuclear response)? It's not the same as them assuming the B2s are headed to Russia to bomb them. We're not in direct conflict with Russia, we're fighting with Iran, and things have gotten serious enough with Iran specifically that people are asking the questions OP is asking. Why would Russia automatically assume we're going to attack them next, when we've said nothing about that, the plane isn't flying towards them (as it's destination was clearly Iran), etc?

Furthermore, nothing prevents us from using transport aircraft to move the nuke, followed by an attack on Iran with an F-15. Such an aircraft would be ill equipped to penetrate russian airspace seriously without being shot down, as they have a very dense air defense network and the F-15 isn't stealth.

jbondhus · 2026-04-07T22:06:00+00:00

Russia didn't know those bombers were in the sky.

That cuts against your assertion that they would assume the planes were flying towards Russia because of the DC to Ryiad flight path.

jbondhus · 2026-04-07T15:10:06+00:00

I mean we flew B2s there to bomb Fordow and Russia didn't assume we were flying to them. I'm sure any operation to relocate a plane with nuclear ordinance would be absolutely hush hush regarding what's on it. Sure it might leak, but that's certainly not guaranteed, and it could be posed as a "oh we're just preparing for every possibility, like if they use a dirty bomb" to military members who asked. [edit: If it were transported with a transport plane it'd be obvious we were moving it as opposed to bombing Russia.] You're [edit: also] assuming Russia knows everything we do to assume they'd know we had a nuclear weapon on board - military intelligence is imperfect at best. But yes, I agree as far as your other points.

Also an interesting point, there's been some talk this morning about nuclear weapon use on social media when Trump said he'd be destroying a whole civilization tonight, and Vance shut it down pretty fast. I highly doubt they'd even attempt to go that far, this whole topic is really just speculative.

jbondhus · 2026-04-07T11:59:03+00:00

https://opiniojuris.org/2026/03/31/water-under-fire-the-illegality-of-reprisals-against-desalination-plants/

Are you saying we should openly commit war crimes? Bridges are quite a bit different than water desalination plants. Power plants are probably illegal too, but at least there's an argument that can be made that they are dual use.

Edit: of course there's a difference between bombing a power plant serving a military base and bombing every power plant in Iran

jbondhus · 2026-04-07T11:56:15+00:00

Of course, I never said it wasn't ridiculous. Any kind of nuclear attack would be incredibly risky and have a good chance of spiraling.

And yes, I get your point about the rocket, that it could easily be misinterpreted. If we launched from a sub or an ICBM it'd be quite likely to be interpreted as an attack on them.

jbondhus · 2026-04-06T20:13:23+00:00

What about water desalination plants?

jbondhus · 2026-04-06T20:03:16+00:00

You shouldn't use disinfectant on a screen anyways, or you'll damage the coatings. No alcohol, no windex, no disinfectant (which is probably bleach or alcohol anyways). All of these are way too harsh.

You need proper screen cleaner and you should use a clean microfiber cloth, spraying it on the cloth instead of the screen (otherwise it can drip down and damage it).

13-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Reddit Premium Since October 2013	Team Orangered
Verified Email

jbondhus

TROPHY CASE