"Why can't Trump get his story straight about the nukes?"
-
"Why can't Trump get his story straight about the nukes?"
No one on the CNN panel will *really* answer this question: Trump just ... says stuff.
Creates a kind of halting problem:
“We obliterated the regime’s nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
"They are close to nuclear"
(but that sounds like we messed up so he says)
“We obliterated the nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
♾️etc.
-
"Why can't Trump get his story straight about the nukes?"
No one on the CNN panel will *really* answer this question: Trump just ... says stuff.
Creates a kind of halting problem:
“We obliterated the regime’s nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
"They are close to nuclear"
(but that sounds like we messed up so he says)
“We obliterated the nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
♾️etc.
@futurebird he reads his audience and then just riffs on whatever's been on his brain lately. but that's not satisfying to the commentariat so they have to try and invent a story about it
-
"Why can't Trump get his story straight about the nukes?"
No one on the CNN panel will *really* answer this question: Trump just ... says stuff.
Creates a kind of halting problem:
“We obliterated the regime’s nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
"They are close to nuclear"
(but that sounds like we messed up so he says)
“We obliterated the nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
♾️etc.
It is surreal to watch people who are experts at using the English language, people whose whole profession and skill is centered on communication trying to parse the words this man speaks. Like someone investigating a splatter of bird poop as if it were tea leaves or art.
-
It is surreal to watch people who are experts at using the English language, people whose whole profession and skill is centered on communication trying to parse the words this man speaks. Like someone investigating a splatter of bird poop as if it were tea leaves or art.
There is a cover story for why the US attacked Iran. One that is almost believable. The argument goes like this:
Iran was developing a drone and missile program rather like the Iron Dome that would make it "impossible" for the US to bomb them, and that would mean it's impossible to stop them if they wanted to make nuclear weapons. So they had to be stopped from doing this now.
Does Iran have the right to defend itself? It's an ugly argument.
-
It is surreal to watch people who are experts at using the English language, people whose whole profession and skill is centered on communication trying to parse the words this man speaks. Like someone investigating a splatter of bird poop as if it were tea leaves or art.
@futurebird I'm so frakking upset that media keeps treating that poop-slug's rambling as something to pay attention to.
-
It is surreal to watch people who are experts at using the English language, people whose whole profession and skill is centered on communication trying to parse the words this man speaks. Like someone investigating a splatter of bird poop as if it were tea leaves or art.
@futurebird
Especially when it's not hard.Trumps speeches are regularly incoherent - both collectively, and in each of the individual statements.
The individual statements often contain lies.
And the lies will often be contradictory.
His speeches don't contain meaning.
-
There is a cover story for why the US attacked Iran. One that is almost believable. The argument goes like this:
Iran was developing a drone and missile program rather like the Iron Dome that would make it "impossible" for the US to bomb them, and that would mean it's impossible to stop them if they wanted to make nuclear weapons. So they had to be stopped from doing this now.
Does Iran have the right to defend itself? It's an ugly argument.
@futurebird so basically a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis but with even less of an excuse since nukes are actually dangerous
-
"Why can't Trump get his story straight about the nukes?"
No one on the CNN panel will *really* answer this question: Trump just ... says stuff.
Creates a kind of halting problem:
“We obliterated the regime’s nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
"They are close to nuclear"
(but that sounds like we messed up so he says)
“We obliterated the nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
♾️etc.
@futurebird Before he was elected, one of Trump's friends was quoted as saying that Trump would lie to you about the time of day just for the practice. Trump is so accustomed to lying about facts that there is no straight story. It changes as quickly as he can make it up.
-
There is a cover story for why the US attacked Iran. One that is almost believable. The argument goes like this:
Iran was developing a drone and missile program rather like the Iron Dome that would make it "impossible" for the US to bomb them, and that would mean it's impossible to stop them if they wanted to make nuclear weapons. So they had to be stopped from doing this now.
Does Iran have the right to defend itself? It's an ugly argument.
Trump has said he will "bomb them back into the stone age" -- This is the solution they have. Cripple anyone who might become able to defend themselves. Every time I hear the phrase "bomb them back into the stone age" a little bile rises in my throat. I'm an American. How must this seem to the people of Iran. What will they vow to do because of our childish chauvinism?
This view of non-western countries is common. It will be our undoing.
-
@futurebird
Especially when it's not hard.Trumps speeches are regularly incoherent - both collectively, and in each of the individual statements.
The individual statements often contain lies.
And the lies will often be contradictory.
His speeches don't contain meaning.
Truely he is the LLM president. A man of our age.
-
"Why can't Trump get his story straight about the nukes?"
No one on the CNN panel will *really* answer this question: Trump just ... says stuff.
Creates a kind of halting problem:
“We obliterated the regime’s nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
"They are close to nuclear"
(but that sounds like we messed up so he says)
“We obliterated the nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
♾️etc.
@futurebird@sauropods.win To me it feels like he's describing a completely different "reality" he's been making up with chatgpt. -
@futurebird so basically a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis but with even less of an excuse since nukes are actually dangerous
I am shocked by the number of world leaders who do not understand that the only reason our allies and our homes cities are not being attacked is because no one wants to do that. If someone wants to hurt us badly enough, if they don't care about the escalation because the US has shuttered all paths to the nation having any real future, then we are cooked. We could strike back but everyone loses.
Some things are beyond US control.
-
I am shocked by the number of world leaders who do not understand that the only reason our allies and our homes cities are not being attacked is because no one wants to do that. If someone wants to hurt us badly enough, if they don't care about the escalation because the US has shuttered all paths to the nation having any real future, then we are cooked. We could strike back but everyone loses.
Some things are beyond US control.
@futurebird @hazelnot I will drop this here. The implications are disturbing and aggravating.
.jpeg?sfvrsn=e09ff2cc_5)
Iran Will Retaliate in the U.S. We May Not See It in Time.
Historically, the U.S. has managed to thwart Iranian operations on its soil. Now, this administration may have us unprepared.
Default (www.lawfaremedia.org)
-
"Why can't Trump get his story straight about the nukes?"
No one on the CNN panel will *really* answer this question: Trump just ... says stuff.
Creates a kind of halting problem:
“We obliterated the regime’s nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
"They are close to nuclear"
(but that sounds like we messed up so he says)
“We obliterated the nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
♾️etc.
@futurebird yeah im stunned ppl havent figured out he just blurts out whatever he thinks sounds powerful and macho and in control
bullshit basically
and bc the real world isnt an action movie then he has to pivot and blurt out the next cover, already forgot the first thing he said. they want a ceasefire we crushed em the allies will get the strait we dont need allies we won we are winning they want to ceasefire no boots on the ground yes boots on the ground i stopped nine wars etc etc
-
@futurebird I'm so frakking upset that media keeps treating that poop-slug's rambling as something to pay attention to.
-
@futurebird @hazelnot I will drop this here. The implications are disturbing and aggravating.
Iran Will Retaliate in the U.S. We May Not See It in Time.
Historically, the U.S. has managed to thwart Iranian operations on its soil. Now, this administration may have us unprepared.
Default (www.lawfaremedia.org)
This administration is not interested in diplomacy or intelligence. These are the things that keep us safe. I would feel even safer if Iran was a trade partner and our economies were linked, if there were sports games and academic conferences between the nations. If Teharan was a tourist destination for all of the remarkable archeology.
-
Trump has said he will "bomb them back into the stone age" -- This is the solution they have. Cripple anyone who might become able to defend themselves. Every time I hear the phrase "bomb them back into the stone age" a little bile rises in my throat. I'm an American. How must this seem to the people of Iran. What will they vow to do because of our childish chauvinism?
This view of non-western countries is common. It will be our undoing.
So far, Iran has been building drones for Russia to use in the war against Ukraine. In future, Iran will likely build these $95 surface-to-air missiles and use them against various targets in the US.
-
This administration is not interested in diplomacy or intelligence. These are the things that keep us safe. I would feel even safer if Iran was a trade partner and our economies were linked, if there were sports games and academic conferences between the nations. If Teharan was a tourist destination for all of the remarkable archeology.
But the US sees Iran as a lesser nation. A region of resource extraction with exotic annoying natives they think we can learn nothing from.
That is the chauvinism that will lead to bloodshed.
-
"Why can't Trump get his story straight about the nukes?"
No one on the CNN panel will *really* answer this question: Trump just ... says stuff.
Creates a kind of halting problem:
“We obliterated the regime’s nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
"They are close to nuclear"
(but that sounds like we messed up so he says)
“We obliterated the nuclear program”
(but then there is no reason for war so he says)
♾️etc.
I don't think Trump even notices he's trapped in a loop of contradictions. He just says what he thinks people want to hear. Sometimes that means that the war is over and we won, but also we are winning and also we will win and it will be over soon and also we will stay as long as need to "get the job done" and "bomb them back into the stone age"
Most Americans oppose this war, a small comfort, but some people still eat this mess. Eat it up.
-
@futurebird @hazelnot I will drop this here. The implications are disturbing and aggravating.
Iran Will Retaliate in the U.S. We May Not See It in Time.
Historically, the U.S. has managed to thwart Iranian operations on its soil. Now, this administration may have us unprepared.
Default (www.lawfaremedia.org)
@InkySchwartz @futurebird @hazelnot
In January 2001, Bush had not won the election, and was unpopular and rightly viewed as illegitimate.
He was determined to lower taxes and cut spending, so he eliminated many of the wasteful antiterrorism programmes started by Clinton.
On September 10th, he was not liked, was having trouble passing laws and was seen as not competent to hold his role.
A few weeks later, he was enormously powerful and able to pass legislation that had been previously unthinkably fascist.
So, like, why would Trump's handlers be _against_ a retaliatory strike? If he gets blamed, it will be forgotten amidst all the other chaos. And if he isn't blamed, they can rush to fill in all the blanks in their existing policy.
