Toronto Girlfriends

JD Vance Urged to Invoke 25th Amendment Against Trump

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
26,923
22,612
113
Wanna a bet on that?

I haven't seen you so excited since Kamala Harris took over the Biden campaign.

Anyway, this Palm Beach County district swings back and forth. It tends to have a large, older Jewish community. Older Jews tend to have a sentimental attachment to the Democratic party. Florida is an interesting mix of native Floridians, migrated Americans and immigrants. The large Venezuelan and Cuban populations in Florida strongly support Trump. If you moved down from a high tax state, you probably have left the Democrats behind.

Given the predominance of liberals in our media, it's easy to get sucked into the hype every election cycle.
Enjoy your Pasta Talarico! It's like primavera, because meat-eating contributes to climate change. ;)
I will just leave this here for your viewing pleasure

 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
26,923
22,612
113
You kind of obsess about this "pretzeling" thing in your head.
I presented some facts about gulf oil to mandrill.
You're the one adding all sorts of color beyond my words in your response.

Here was the post that you responded to. Please take any sentence and tell me where you object.

About the only statement that could be remotely considered subjective is we will see how all this evolves. Hardly a contentious thought.
I'm sorry that I have to be so didactic but you seem to have a hard time staying within the words on the page.
Your schtick is basically spouting off what Trump had said, sorry, if the truth tends to upset you. I don't mean to upset you.
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,671
33,159
113
You kind of obsess about this "pretzeling" thing in your head.
I presented some facts about gulf oil to mandrill.
You're the one adding all sorts of color beyond my words in your response.

Here was the post that you responded to. Please take any sentence and tell me where you object.

About the only statement that could be remotely considered subjective is we will see how all this evolves. Hardly a contentious thought.
I'm sorry that I have to be so didactic but you seem to have a hard time staying within the words on the page.
That's a very american attitude: who cares if the world is fucked because of trump's operation Epstein Fury, cuz america still has oil.

You're missing the end of the american petro dollar, with BRICS moving away from the dollar as Iran demands Yuan for passage through the Hormuz.
You're ignoring helium, sulphur and fertilizer coming out of the gulf as well.

Now Ukraine hit another Russian refinery. India and Australia are already close to rationing gas.

 
  • Like
Reactions: SchlongConery

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
90,152
145,684
113
1774529436142.png

Dozing Dontard, the presidementia of the USA falls asleep in public again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jalimon

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,587
3,426
113
Your schtick is basically spouting off what Trump had said, sorry, if the truth tends to upset you. I don't mean to upset you.
If you can't directly discuss the words on the page that's on you.
I have a problem with people challenging facts with non sequiturs and insults like your old standby pretzeling.

There was a member here awhile back who was losing his cool after the election and all his responses projected different meanings to posts.
Even after I tried to have a private discussion explaining that's not cool, he was obstinate about carrying on. I no longer converse with him.
(I don't know what was going on in his head, but he is less active now.)
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,671
33,159
113
If you can't directly discuss the words on the page that's on you.
I have a problem with people challenging facts with non sequiturs and insults like your old standby pretzeling.

There was member here awhile back who was losing his cool after the election and all his responses projected different meanings to posts.
Even after I tried to have a private discussion explaining that's not cool, he was obstinate about carrying on. I no longer converse with him.
(I don't know what was going on in his head, but he is less active now.)
You only take issue with insults and non sequiturs with left wingers on this board, its purely partisan politics.
The same way you will just ignore arguments you can't answer to and move on.

You don't take part in honest debate.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,587
3,426
113
@mandrill I sense you have been supportive of Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon.
How are you reconciling this with Trump's attack on Iran's leadership and military?

It's an honest question and I thought you would be a good member to ask.

My opinion is some members are trying to walk a fine line on this. They despise Iran, but they want to critique the Trump Administration on its military execution.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
26,923
22,612
113
If you can't directly discuss the words on the page that's on you.
I have a problem with people challenging facts with non sequiturs and insults like your old standby pretzeling.

There was a member here awhile back who was losing his cool after the election and all his responses projected different meanings to posts.
Even after I tried to have a private discussion explaining that's not cool, he was obstinate about carrying on. I no longer converse with him.
(I don't know what was going on in his head, but he is less active now.)
Yes, avoid answering any question you deem is not applicable because it doesn't suit your narrative, gotcha!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,671
33,159
113
@mandrill I sense you have been supportive of Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon.
How are you reconciling this with Trump's attack on Iran's leadership and military?

It's an honest question and I thought you would be a good member to ask.

My opinion is some members are trying to walk a fine line on this. They despise Iran, but they want to critique the Trump Administration on its military execution.
Wars of aggression are wrong and evil.

Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine is wrong
Israeli occupation and genocide in Palestine is wrong
Israeli attempts to invade and occupy Lebanon are wrong
america's attacks and attempts to steal oil in Iran are wrong
america trying to invade and control Venezuela for oil is wrong
american blockade on Cuba is wrong

That's the only consistent and morally correct position to take.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
90,152
145,684
113
@mandrill I sense you have been supportive of Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon.
How are you reconciling this with Trump's attack on Iran's leadership and military?

It's an honest question and I thought you would be a good member to ask.

My opinion is some members are trying to walk a fine line on this. They despise Iran, but they want to critique the Trump Administration on its military execution.
I do support Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon. But I get the feeling that the attacks on Iran are not nearly as well planned and thought through and have no real goal in sight. I am surprised and disappointed in Israel for this. I just think Trump is too dumb to know what he is doing 99% of the time and just went along w Netanyahu.

If you start a war, you should have a realistic goal and a do-able strategy. I'm not seeing this with the Iran war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeezer

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
34,068
7,960
113
@mandrill I sense you have been supportive of Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon.
How are you reconciling this with Trump's attack on Iran's leadership and military?

It's an honest question and I thought you would be a good member to ask.

My opinion is some members are trying to walk a fine line on this. They despise Iran, but they want to critique the Trump Administration on its military execution.
It is possible to be just plain anti war and wish a pox on both houses.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,587
3,426
113
I do support Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon. But I get the feeling that the attacks on Iran are not nearly as well planned and thought through and have no real goal in sight. I am surprised and disappointed in Israel for this. I just think Trump is too dumb to know what he is doing 99% of the time and just went along w Netanyahu.

If you start a war, you should have a realistic goal and a do-able strategy. I'm not seeing this with the Iran war.
There is some good reason for this concern. I just don't listen to American media's every critique of the war and its execution.
American media says the Trump Administration did not plan for the Iranians ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.
I've been hearing for over forty years how easy it is for a determined Iran to close the Strait.
So of course, the U.S. military expected this and was planning for it long before Trump.

Why isn't the war over in three weeks? Why can't we open the Strait immediately? And so on.
Wars aren't simple matters where everything unfolds in quick timelines with linear results. Iran will fight back anyway it can.

Additionally, the American media thinks every plan should be vetted publicly which I think most of us know is just absurd.

I think there is a lot we don't know about the nuclear program, Iranian leadership and U.S. military plans. We have created a lot of politicized noise. There's this strange idealism that developed the last fifteen years that we could contain the Iranians while allowing them limited progress on their nuclear and missile programs.

At this juncture, I don't think anyone knows with certainty if this was a good idea or a bad idea. Kicking the can down the road could have been far more disastrous.
 
Last edited:

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
26,923
22,612
113
execut
There is some good reason for this concern. I just don't listen to American media every critique of the war and its execution.
American media says the Trump Administration did not plan for the Iranians ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.
I've been hearing for over forty years how easy it is for a determined Iran to close the Strait.
So of course, the U.S. military expected this and was planning for it long before Trump.

Why isn't the war over in three weeks? Why can't we open the Strait immediately? And so on.
Wars aren't simple matters where everything unfolds in quick timelines with linear results. Iran will fight back anyway it can.

Additionally, the American media thinks every plan should be vetted publicly which I think most of us know is just absurd.

I think there is a lot we don't know about the nuclear program, Iranian leadership and U.S. military plans. We have created a lot of politicized noise. There's this strange idealism that developed the last fifteen years that we could contain the Iranians while allowing them limited progress on their nuclear and missile programs.

At this juncture, I don't think anyone knows with certainty if this was a good idea or a bad idea. Kicking the can down the road could have been far more disastrous.
Easy question, Wyatt, and this is related to this post. What would your stance have been if Biden had done this exactly as it's playing out now?
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,587
3,426
113
Easy question, Wyatt, and this is related to this post. What would your stance have been if Biden had done this exactly as it's playing out now?
Exact same.

If anyone was really curious, they could see my post history is very consistent on the inevitability of conflict with Iran.
After the June 2025, I didn't say much. I should have noted that I thought it likely there would be more attacks unless Iran gave up its nuclear ambitions.

I use to go round and round with Frank on the JCPOA.
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,671
33,159
113
I do support Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon. But I get the feeling that the attacks on Iran are not nearly as well planned and thought through and have no real goal in sight. I am surprised and disappointed in Israel for this. I just think Trump is too dumb to know what he is doing 99% of the time and just went along w Netanyahu.

If you start a war, you should have a realistic goal and a do-able strategy. I'm not seeing this with the Iran war.
You support genocide and the illegal invasion of Lebanon.

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,671
33,159
113
Exact same.

If anyone was really curious, they could see my post history is very consistent on the inevitability of conflict with Iran.
After the June 2025, I didn't say much. I should have noted that I thought it likely there would be more attacks unless Iran gave up its nuclear ambitions.

I use to go round and round with Frank on the JCPOA.
Yet one set of trump's peace demands are essentially a return to the JCPOA.
After this war all states will understand that the only way to avoid having america or Israel attack is to build the bomb.

Attacking Iran is just part of 19th century, racist, colonial thinking.

 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
26,923
22,612
113
You support genocide and the illegal invasion of Lebanon.
Yet one set of trump's peace demands are essentially a return to the JCPOA.
After this war all states will understand that the only way to avoid having america or Israel attack is to build the bomb.
Question for you, Franky,

Do you think that if Kamala Harris were in charge, there wouldn’t have been a U.S. strike involving Iran? Don't deflect, don't go into your Israel hate on, just answer yes or no.

BTW, I do agree that other countries seeing the US bullying non-nuclear countries around to the point of invasions really makes an argument for having a nuke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,671
33,159
113
Question for you, Franky,

Do you think that if Kamala Harris were in charge, there wouldn’t have been a U.S. strike involving Iran? Don't deflect, don't go into your Israel hate on, just answer yes or no.

BTW, I do agree that other countries seeing the US bullying non-nuclear countries around to the point of invasions really makes an argument for having a nuke.
I don't think she would have attacked Iran, american war gaming always showed it to be a bad idea. This war took someone stupid and egotistical enough, along with someone with enough blackmail material. Realistically, this was Netanyahu's last chance for his 40 year dream.

Harris likely would have continued the genocide and also supported the attacks on Lebanon.

Question for you, who do you think comes out ahead in the end, Iran or Israel/america?
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
26,923
22,612
113
I don't think she would have attacked Iran, american war gaming always showed it to be a bad idea. This war took someone stupid and egotistical enough, along with someone with enough blackmail material. Realistically, this was Netanyahu's last chance for his 40 year dream.
So then instead of protesting at the University all the arabs should have gone and voted for Kamala in 2024 is what you're now saying.

Harris likely would have continued the genocide and also supported the attacks on Lebanon.
The only reason Bibi went into Lebanon is that he knew he had Trump's blessing. This isn't necessarily true had Kamala won. That being said, it doesn't matter who is in power, the US will always back their allie Israel to a certain point.


Question for you, who do you think comes out ahead in the end, Iran or Israel/america?
Hard to say, militarily Israel and the US have devastated Iran, but on a political and economic level, Iran is taking the boots to Trump, and to be honest, I like it.

Add in if he brings in ground troops, as I suspect is the plan, it will be Trump's head if a lot of American lives are lost.
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
90,152
145,684
113
There is some good reason for this concern. I just don't listen to American media's every critique of the war and its execution.
American media says the Trump Administration did not plan for the Iranians ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.
I've been hearing for over forty years how easy it is for a determined Iran to close the Strait.
So of course, the U.S. military expected this and was planning for it long before Trump.

Why isn't the war over in three weeks? Why can't we open the Strait immediately? And so on.
Wars aren't simple matters where everything unfolds in quick timelines with linear results. Iran will fight back anyway it can.

Additionally, the American media thinks every plan should be vetted publicly which I think most of us know is just absurd.

I think there is a lot we don't know about the nuclear program, Iranian leadership and U.S. military plans. We have created a lot of politicized noise. There's this strange idealism that developed the last fifteen years that we could contain the Iranians while allowing them limited progress on their nuclear and missile programs.

At this juncture, I don't think anyone knows with certainty if this was a good idea or a bad idea. Kicking the can down the road could have been far more disastrous.
There frankly appears to be not even a glimmer of a workable plan. And the fact that the Chiefs of Staff might have guessed that Iran would close the Straits doesn't mean that Senile Dummyboy Donnie would have any idea that this would happen when he ordered the first strikes.

Every suggested plan appears to be disastrous bullshit. The USN hasn't mustered the firepower to open the Straits. In fact, their 2nd carrier in the area is now in harbour in Crete for extensive repairs and they sent their minesweepers back to the US a few weeks ago.

A battle group from the 82nd cannot take and hold Kharg Island and that target is itself 100's of miles from the Straits. And meanwhile, Iran blocks the Straits with impunity - except to compliant asskisser ships who pay an extortionate ransom.

It's a shitshow. And you claiming that "5 Dimensional Chess" Senile Dementia-boy has a secret plan is completely unconvincing.

HEQWMncX0AAe8mk.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeezer
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts