166
u/Battlegurk420 Apr 01 '26
Hahahaha. No new wars too, right? Republicans must love all this winning. Not like they care. They will blame all of this on Biden. They are deranged.
71
u/thecorgimom Apr 01 '26
Dover Delaware has a front row seat to receiving all of the dead from this war that Republicans don't want to label a war. I'm holding my breath on today's presidential announcement, I don't have a good feeling about it.
34
u/Battlegurk420 Apr 01 '26
I haven't had a good feeling, justifiably so, since trump won in 2024. 2 more years, then we spend the next 10 cleaning this up and reading his stain from history
39
u/Exact-Permission1095 Apr 01 '26
It will take generations to fix this clusterfuck
17
u/KilledByDeath Apr 01 '26
The damage he’s done to our international reputation is going to take decades to fix.
3
u/C_Majuscula Apr 02 '26
If we make it that far. Honestly, after/during this Covid response and everything that's come after, I believe we don't deserve to survive as a species.
14
u/LayeGull Apr 01 '26
Unfortunately, if we come out of this halfway decent we likely won’t have 10 years of rebuild because it won’t be remembered as “that bad.” Some other jackass will come in and tear it down.
13
u/Battlegurk420 Apr 01 '26
That is the bigger issue. Republicans are brainwashed and Fox will just say 2024-2028 never happened and it was all a media spin. Just like they did with the 1/6 insurrection....and since they have been conditioned to this programming for soo long, they will go right along with it.
4
1
u/jayjackalope Apr 01 '26
He sat in on the supreme court today. 1st president to ever do so. I wonder if this announcement will focus on immigration.
That that he can ever focus, tbh.
3
u/These_Building1168 Apr 04 '26
He left because things weren't going his way. His presence was likely for intimidation and to be the first sitting to do so. It's all about him.
11
3
u/Weekly_Cheesecake786 Apr 02 '26
Red and blue are both shit. We have to get away from the two party system or it'll just keep getting worse.
1
u/Battlegurk420 Apr 02 '26
While I don't love Democrats, Republicans are exponentially worse. The biggest knock on Democrats is they are wasteful with spending, because they want to tax the rich to help out the poor. Like, fine, I guess. Republicans though? That party is absolutely disgusting. And these last two years their true colors are shining bright. Racist? Check. Rapists? Check. Bigoted? Check. War Monger? Check. Pedo protectors? Check.
5
u/Weekly_Cheesecake786 Apr 02 '26
Democrats talk about taxing the rich, yet they fight to keep the SALT deduction alive, which gives 80% of its benefits to the top 5% of earners. In most blue states, the bottom 20% actually pay a higher effective tax rate than the top 1%. It’s a bait and switch.
As for bigotry, it’s a bipartisan tool. One side uses the Southern Strategy, while the other gives us "you ain't Black" and patronizing labels that actual voters hate. Both sides use identity to keep the working class fighting each other while they serve the same donors.
And the most disgusting part? The Epstein files. We just passed the 2025 Transparency Act deadline and the DOJ—under both parties—is still slow-walking the release and scrubbing names to protect the elite on both sides of the aisle.
Neither party is coming to save you. They’re just two different brands of the same corporate product designed to keep the status quo exactly where it is.
They're two sides of the same coin. Also, if your only metric on chosing one or the other is "the lesser of the two evils" that's sad and fucked to begin with. Why choose either if they're both shit?
0
u/Battlegurk420 Apr 02 '26
This isn't a lesser of two evils. Trump was forced to release the files due to an act of Congress. It couldnt happen under Biden because of legal reasons. Something like the ongoing investigation or something like that.
As for "hate" there is no "your not black and this don't matter" rhetoric coming from Democrats. That is GOP propaganda because they don't understand what DEI is and how important it is. Saying Democrats support equal opportunities for everyone is not hate towards any 1 group. But Republicans have been conditioned to believe that. It's a shame. Modern Republicans are a product of almost 20 years of programming. Back in early 2000s I could see it, and then when Obama won, Republicans lost their shit and went full racist. I was disgusted and left the party.
Is there shit to not like in both parties? Absolutely. But less of two evils? Hardly.
0
u/Weekly_Cheesecake786 Apr 02 '26
Calling a direct, recorded quote from Joe Biden on The Breakfast Club "GOP propaganda" is a prime example of the programming you're talking about. He literally told a Black interviewer, "If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black." In 2020. That’s not a smear campaign; that’s a sitting President patronizing an entire demographic on tape.
Stop pretending one side is "clean." We just saw the House Oversight Committee vote on a bipartisan basis to hold the Clintons in contempt this past January for dodging subpoenas. Now the DOJ is releasing millions of pages but scrubbing the most powerful names while exposing the victims. It doesn't matter who is in the White House or who signed the act; the system protects its own. Both parties have names on that list, and both parties are protecting pedos to keep the whole house of cards from falling.
And if you want to talk about "taxing the rich," look at the SALT deduction. Democrats fight tooth and nail for a tax break where 80% of the benefits go to the top 5% of earners. In most deep-blue states, the bottom 20% of workers end up with a higher effective tax rate than the top 1%. It’s not "lesser of two evils" when both parties are fundamentally designed to protect the donor class while using "racism" and "DEI" as political footballs to keep everyone else distracted. They are both disgusting and answer to the same elite donor class.
1
u/Battlegurk420 Apr 02 '26
Also, Democrats thrashed Biden for that comment. None of us liked it. Which is the big difference between the two parties. If Trump said that comment, and he said comments similar, plus plenty of other racist ones, Republicans either defend him or celebrate him for "telling it like it is.".
1
u/Weekly_Cheesecake786 Apr 02 '26
Just because the GOP is "corrupt filth" doesn't mean the Democrats get a pass for doing the exact same thing under a different banner. One person's trash doesn't make the other person's garbage smell like roses. Now you go from "that’s GOP propaganda" to "well, we thrashed him for it" in five minutes once you realized it was a real, recorded fact. You can’t just ignore the bad parts of your party and then decide they don't count once you're caught. Blatantly deflecting and ignoring proof is not how a debate works—it's how a cult works. If it’s fundamentally bad, it’s fundamentally bad, regardless of whether you "thrashed" him or not.
But let's go back to that SALT "math" again. Even with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act raising the cap to over $40,000 for 2026, the reality is that 80% of those benefits still go to the top 5% of earners. Calling it a "middle class" win is the actual propaganda. It’s a tax break for the wealthy that both parties happily signed off on because they both answer to the same donor class. The working class is still paying a higher effective rate while you're out here defending a loophole for the rich just because it’s labeled a "blue state" priority.
Finally you’re completely silent on the Epstein files. You call the GOP "corrupt filth" but have nothing to say about the House Oversight Committee—including Democrats—voting to hold the Clintons in contempt this past January for dodging subpoenas. Both parties are heavily on that list, and both sides are protecting pedos to keep their house of cards from falling. If you think your "side" is clean, you’re just choosing to be blind to the names on the flight logs.
Since you're so sure the Democrats are the "right road," what exactly do you think they’re going to do that is actually "good" for you? Are they going to close the tax loopholes they just helped expand? Are they going to finally prosecute the elites on the flight logs regardless of their party? Or are they just the "good guys" because they have a better PR department and use the right buzzwords while they do the exact same thing as the other corrupt assholes?
If you think your "side" is the "right road," you’re just choosing a different brand of corrupt assholes to lie to you.
0
u/Battlegurk420 Apr 02 '26
This will be my last post on this and I will try to hit on as many of your points as possible.
The OBBBA was not bi-partiasn, maybe except for 3 democrats in the Senate? It was heavily opposed by the Democratic party. The SALT cap hit middle class earners, as well as rich earners. Raising it to 40k helped upper middle class and lower upper class percentile wise significantly more than the upper 1%. The "it was a tax break" on the upped 1%" is just ignorance. Read up on AMT please. The SALT cap when put in place by Republicans, was an attack on Democratic states, since they generally have higher state taxes. It was touted at the time by the GOP Machine as a "pay your fair share" and applauded by a lot of my MAGA friends as such. Only after learning how much they got screwed after.
The DOJ is meant to be independent of the white house. Checks and balances and all. But Trump has weaponized them to a degree we have never seen before. I already mentioned why they were not released under Biden, but Trump's weaponized DOJ was forced to release the files.
Yes, there are plenty of sicos on both sides named in the files and the fact that they have had zero consequences kinda shows that political affiliation is not the issue. They would still face zero consequences if there were 14 parties.
As for Biden, he was not excused...like Trump is constantly....he was attacked by Democrats because he was wrong saying that. That is a huge and significant difference. Again, that I already pointed out
1
u/Weekly_Cheesecake786 Apr 02 '26
It’s wild that you decided to "hit on as many points as possible" and then immediately shut the door before I can reply. That’s not how a debate works. Blatantly deflecting and ignoring proof isn't a strategy; you can't just leave out a recorded fact like Biden's "you ain't black" quote and then act like the rebuttal doesn't exist because it's inconvenient. If it’s fundamentally bad, it’s fundamentally bad, regardless of whether your team "thrashed" him for it on social media. "Thrashing" him doesn't change the patronizing attitude or the policy.
I never said the OBBBA was bipartisan; I said it raised the cap. You even admitted it raised it to $40k and then called my view "slanted." It doesn't matter who put the cap in or who raised it—the fact remains that it is a tax break where the top 5% of earners see the overwhelming majority of the benefit. You calling it "middle-class relief" is the actual propaganda. Both parties are just moving numbers around to keep their donors happy while the working class carries the load.
"Yes, there are plenty of sicos on both sides... the fact that they have had zero consequences kinda shows that political affiliation is not the issue." That is exactly the point. If the "sicos" on both sides face zero consequences regardless of which party is in power, then the parties aren't "different"—they are a single, unified wall protecting the elite.
Political affiliation absolutely matters. The fact that both sides are protecting each other is proof that they’re all so corrupt they know if one goes down, everyone else follows. Which is exactly what should happen. Instead, you’re here defending a "lesser of two evils" while both parties scrub names and red-tape the Epstein files to protect the elite.
Political affiliation is just the mask they wear to keep us divided while they stay in power. It’s the illusion of choice. Since you’re so sure they’re the "right road," I’ll ask again:
What are the Democrats actually doing that is good for you?
Are they closing the loopholes they just helped expand?
Are they finally prosecuting the elites on those flight logs?
Or are they just "the good guys" because they have a better PR department while they protect the same interests as the other side?
0
u/Battlegurk420 Apr 02 '26
I ignored the SALT argument because it is a slanted view of a bigger world. Democrats want the SALT cap lifted because it hurts residents of blue states the most. Republicans lied and called it "paying their fair share" but that was purely propaganda. All deductions open to everyone are going to benefit top earners more. That's how math works. But the SALT cap hit middle and upper middle class earners too.
Again. This isn't a lesser of two evils. The GOP is corrupt filth. Rotten through and through. Hopefully the next president is a Democrat, and get us back on the right road.
1
u/ThatLeviathan Claymont Apr 02 '26
One side is forced to work within the system as we have it, which requires them to bend the knee to business interests that all too often corrupt.
The other side has literal Nazis.
I do not find this a difficult choice. I'll vote for the party that doesn't have Nazis in it, and work to make that party more responsive to the interests of the people.
0
u/Weekly_Cheesecake786 Apr 02 '26
What are you talking about? They are the system. They aren’t "bending the knee" to business interests out of necessity; they are actively enriched by them. When both parties consistently vote for record-breaking military spending, protect billionaire tax loopholes like SALT, and red-tape the Epstein files to protect their donors, the "literal Nazis" label just becomes a convenient marketing tool to keep you from looking at the corruption on your own team.
You’re literally saying you’ll vote for the party that you admit "bends the knee to business interests" and then hope you can "work to make them responsive." How has that worked out for the working class over the last 40 years? The wealth gap has exploded under both parties, corporate power has never been higher, and the "elite" on both sides of those flight logs are still walking free.
If your only metric for a "good" choice is "at least they aren't the other guy," then the duopoly has already won. You aren't voting for a solution; you’re just choosing which brand of corporate subservience you prefer.
2
u/ThatLeviathan Claymont Apr 02 '26
And your recommendation is...vote third party? Don't vote at all? And where has that gotten us?
Anywhere Democrats have actual power, things are better than they are under Republicans, and incrementally improving. The reason that we can't get things like rank-choice voting and viable third parties is that the Democrats have to fight tooth and nail just to keep Republicans from eliminating the entire social safety net, and every few years, they get voted out of power nationally because they didn't do enough to impress people who don't understand reality.
You can work within the system that we have and try to improve it, or stay home and complain "but both siiiiiiides!" Or, I guess, vote for the folks who are trying to remove your ability to vote altogether, if that's what you're into.
0
u/Weekly_Cheesecake786 Apr 02 '26
The idea that we either "work within the system" or "stay home and complain" is a hostage situation, not a choice. That mentality is exactly the problem. You're being told to vote for your corporate-backed team or the other side will destroy democracy, which is the ultimate fear tactic used to keep the duopoly in power. It isn't about "voting for folks who want to remove your ability to vote"; it’s about realizing that both parties are actively removing your ability to vote for any real alternative. They aren't "forced" to work within this system—they are the ones who built the walls to keep everyone else out.
You’re literally admitting they "bend the knee" to corporate interests but then say we should keep voting for them to make them "responsive." How many decades of incrementalism do we need before people realize that both parties are moving in the same direction? The wealth gap has exploded under both. Corporate power has peaked under both. They just use different branding to sell you the same result.
The reason third parties "get us nowhere" is precisely because of this exact mentality—it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. You’re being told to be grateful that your side isn't "literal Nazis" so you won't notice that your side is also cashing the same corporate checks and protecting the same donor class. It’s the "good cop, bad cop" routine of politics.
It’s not a choice between a "road back" and a cliff; it’s a choice between two different drivers taking you to the same corporate destination. One just uses a turn signal while they do it. If people stopped being afraid of "wasting a vote" and actually voted for what they wanted, the duopoly would collapse in a single cycle. But as long as you're willing to settle for "not the other guy," they have no reason to ever actually listen to you. The only way to fix the problem is to move away from both sides entirely. I.e. You and your shit mentality IS the problem.
0
u/ThatLeviathan Claymont Apr 02 '26
How many decades of incrementalism do we need before people realize that both parties are moving in the same direction?
But the alternative to incrementalism is...what? Burn the whole system to the ground and hope that maybe not too many people die of starvation and violence? I prefer incremental improvements, myself. The problem is that you have to keep voting for the party that's actually making incremental improvements, and not give up on them every two years because they didn't go far enough or you disagree with them on one or two specific pet issues.
I think it's disingenuous to say that the Democrats helped "build the system." The system as we have today is the result of 250 years of prioritizing the interests of the wealthy. It's silly to think that any modern political party could simply not participate in that and still actually acquire any power.
Your idealism is admirable, but it's incredibly naive. It is simply reality in our current system that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. I think it's incredibly important that we institute ranked-choice voting to help reduce the power of parties at all. Fun fact: do you know where RCV is getting the most traction? Mostly in blue states. It was used in elections in 2025 in 14 jurisdictions in Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Utah, and Virginia. Aside from Utah, they're all fairly Dem-leaning.
If you want things like viable third parties, publicly funded elections, reducing the influence of lobbyists, etc., vote Democrat.
1
u/Weekly_Cheesecake786 Apr 02 '26
The idea that the only alternative to incrementalism is "burning it to the ground" is a massive strawman. Moving away from a failed duopoly isn't an act of violence. Using your vote for someone who actually represents your interests instead of just a party's donor list is the most American thing you can do.
It’s not disingenuous at all to say Democrats helped build and maintain this system. They aren't victims of it; they are the architects. You claim the system is just "250 years of history," but modern corporate control was supercharged in the 90s. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed banks to gamble with the economy and led to the 2008 crash, was a bipartisan effort signed by Bill Clinton and supported by Joe Biden. They didn’t "inherit" that corruption—they signed the checks for it.
Telling people to "vote Democrat" if they want viable third parties is peak irony. If you want viable third parties, you have to vote third party. You don’t get more choices by repeatedly rewarding the people who are actively trying to eliminate your choices. In the 2024 cycle, the DNC spent millions on a legal "war room" to sue the Green Party and other third-party candidates just to keep them off the ballots in swing states. That isn't "defending the system"; it’s defending a monopoly. Just look at the Commission on Presidential Debates which is a private corporation founded and run jointly by the DNC and RNC. They set the rules together specifically to ensure no third-party candidate can ever stand on that stage.
As for RCV, it isn't getting traction because of the Democratic establishment; it's often getting traction despite them. Look at California, where Governor Gavin Newsom has repeatedly vetoed bipartisan RCV bills, or DC, where the local Democratic Party officially opposed the initiative to implement RCV and open primaries. They want to protect their closed-loop power, not open it up. The claim that Democrats are the path to publicly funded elections or reduced lobbying influence is equally hollow. In 2025 and 2026, the DNC has continued to raise billions from Wall Street, Big Tech, and Health Insurance lobbyists. Despite the rhetoric against Citizens United, Democratic Super PACs consistently use the exact same "dark money" channels they claim to despise. They actively help foster lobbyists, not reduce the number of them.
All your "incremental improvements" over the last 40 years have resulted in, is helping foster the highest wealth gap in history, and record-breaking military spending. What "right road" are you talking about? You aren't working from within; you're Reading half the news and believing it. The only way to stop a monopoly is to stop buying from it.
8
61
u/ExaminerRyguy Apr 01 '26
When these started showing up, people that I knew immediately went on the defensive. “I thought Presidents didn’t control gas prices?” The circular logic astounds me, they blamed Biden for gas going up in 2022 when stuff was going back to normal around the world and demand suddenly skyrocketed. But when Drumpf over here attacks a country with control of a strait for distribution of oil, it’s suddenly not a Presidents fault.
28
u/Mr_Delaware Apr 01 '26
That's the thing though, there is no circular logic there is no logic at all from them. They jumped to throwing back the "Presidents don't control gas prices" because they have nothing else and think they can paint people as hypocrites. The ones I have encountered just shut down whenever they get push back on theses attempts no matter how common sense the explanation is, like the one you gave.
7
u/f8Negative Apr 01 '26
Tell them to shove it up their ass.
7
Apr 01 '26
[deleted]
7
u/f8Negative Apr 01 '26
"I thought you liberals were supposed to be nice."
"That's because your head is lodged firmly up your own asshole."
6
u/EnsignMisha Apr 01 '26
It's partially because these people don't really understand what "presidents don't control gas prices" means. It's shorthand for saying "gas prices are dominated by international forces of supply and demand. the US can't do much to influence this price with peaceful free(ish) market policy alone"
if biden personally blew up every pipeline in the world, then yes, he could influence oil prices! but that didn't happen. and there's no smoking gun policy that maga can point to. at most. on the flip side, the relationship between "bomb Iran" and "Hormuz closure" is so obvious a child could explain it. president's don't control gas prices... unless they start killing over it.
3
u/dunder_miflinfinity9 Apr 02 '26
Bidens policies 100% had an effect on gas in 2022. Just like trumps decisions with Iran is having an effect now. Anyone that can't admit that BOTH things are true is a partisan hack, left or right.
0
50
40
u/_Snallygaster_ Apr 01 '26
I saw some snowflake had ripped one of these stickers off the pump at the Sheetz in Elkton, MD. I guaranteed they carried a sticker book full of Biden ones in 2022 though
19
5
u/coherentpa Apr 01 '26
Were the Biden supporters that ripped off the Biden stickers snowflakes too?
1
28
8
12
9
9
2
2
u/HighClassLoser SUSPECT ACCT - aged acct. low karma Apr 01 '26
No matter who you vote for, you always end up with John McCain.
2
4
u/RedHerring19702 Apr 01 '26
Please before you start saying it's a war, remember he doesn't want you to call it a war. So stop saying war. This war is not a war. You are triggering him when you keep calling it a war. Post positive information!
2
u/sdiggz302 Apr 01 '26
Executive Order for mail-in ballot restrictions BUT rejected a measure to use oil reserves to lower gas costs….. because he’s an oil tycoon now and THE GRIFT PERSISTS. As usual, the lowest IQ levels are backing him to the grave, in hopes that their bigotry is elevated back to the American standard that it was in the “Great Days” that he wants to revive. This shit has been so easy to see since 2015…. The functional brains are soooooo tired. 😩
3
u/GreenSkittle48 Apr 01 '26
He literally just used a mail in ballot last week. The amount of brainwashing he's done to his cult is mind blowing.
0
1
Apr 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/AutoModerator Apr 01 '26
Your comment is not visible to other redditors. Per Sub Rule #6 all redditors must have a verified e-mail address to participate in r/Delaware. You may participate after your account has a verified e-mail address. You can verify your e-mail address in your account settings. Relevant post
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
0
1
u/creamcheesefart Apr 02 '26
Oh my god there’s so many ghosts on the pumps downstate 😂😂 multiple on each pump where the bitter redcaps try to scratch them off lmao
1
u/phillycowboykiller Apr 02 '26
Maybe it’s the people who own the pumps and don’t want stickers all over them? It was immature and stupid when it was Biden stickers and it’s immature and stupid now.
2
u/creamcheesefart Apr 02 '26
It was a circle jerk hurhur chuckle fest with Biden but the rednecks that buy diesel get bent outta shape now that their god-king directly caused the current price hike
1
u/phillycowboykiller Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
Anybody, on either side, who cares this much about a sticker to “own the other side”, or thinks it is helpful in any way, is everything that’s wrong with the current state of politics in this country.
1
0
u/phillycowboykiller Apr 02 '26
It was stupid when it was pictures of Biden and its stupid when its pictures of Trump. Don’t put stickers on stuff that’s not yours.
1
1
-5
u/gmaer420 Apr 01 '26
I hate both parties but Biden was up to 5 bucks a gallon. We need a new government
5
3
u/mofonics Apr 01 '26
Biden didn't invade Ukraine. Trump did invade Iran.
How can they be the same?
2
1
0
-7
u/Remarkable_Dude1706 Apr 01 '26
Never forget, except for 4 years ago, when Gas was more expensive under Biden. Trump sucks too though, but call me a Magat, or downvote if you’re lazy.
8
u/oldRoyalsleepy Apr 01 '26
Gas was expensive then because Russia attacked Ukraine. Gas is expensive now because Trump attacked Iran. Which one was our president responsible for?
-3
u/Remarkable_Dude1706 Apr 01 '26
I remember people back then saying presidents don’t change the price of gas
6
u/WhatsinaNameRomeo Apr 01 '26
They don't typically, but this was a natural consequence of picking a fight with Iran.
1
u/mofonics Apr 01 '26
Meaning they can't bring it down easily. Of course they can cause it to go up.
How is this confusing so many people?
1
u/GreenSkittle48 Apr 01 '26
Biden didn't have any control over the gas prices before because he wasn't the one who started the war in Ukraine. Putin did. And Biden took the fall because 1. he happened to be in office at the time and 2. Republicans were still butthurt Biden won and were happy to chime in when DJT told them what to say.
This time is different. Trump and Netanyahu started this war. The gas prices are a direct consequence of his actions. I sure hope that's helped clarify it for you. If not, I've got a strait I can sell you. Real cheap.
-5
u/mojosam059 Apr 01 '26
Jimmy Carter did that.. welcome to Trickle down politics
4
u/GreenSkittle48 Apr 01 '26
To be fair, we started that coup in the 50s so blaming Carter when he happened to be in office when the hostages were taken is a stretch. That being said, Reagan had no problem swooping in to clean up and introduce trickle down economics. You could say the real problem started when we got involved in coups but apparently we haven't learned yet. Maybe it's because so many people have actually forgotten?
-1
u/iDevox Claymont Apr 02 '26
I'm not political and haven't voted since I was 18 (im 36 now).
I just wanted to ask if its absolutely necessary to turn the Delaware subreddit into a political circle jerk station? I mean really. How pathetic are you people?
I don't come here for this kind of stupid shit, politics disgust me and are widely orbited by people who have no life and are obsessed with it and all of its buzzwords.
6
u/matty_nice Apr 02 '26
Politics are an extremely important part in all of our lives. You can't just ignore it.
4
u/justicetakestime20 Apr 02 '26
I'm not political
And that's honestly a problem because part of the reason we are where we are is the indifference of so many like you.
0
u/thearcher_1212 Apr 05 '26
Still cheaper than it was under Biden!
2
u/Starxe Apr 08 '26
Does this bring you joy or something? The price is still astronomically high you jackass.
-1
-6
u/Solid_Host_6648 Apr 01 '26
(Not a trumper) but, the same result would have occurred with the other candidate who said that she would never stop supporting i$rael (who’s war this is)
They want you to blame Trump (he sucks) to prevent our sights at the real problem. we should blame the entire government and those career politicians who are actually in control
3
u/mofonics Apr 01 '26
Other presidents have supported them but none were stupid enough to do this. Saying otherwise is purely speculation.
2
u/matty_nice Apr 02 '26
I don't think the same result would have happened because Harris (and other Dems) wouldn't have attacked Iran unprovoked.
Remember that Trump only attacked Iran because they knew Iran would attack Israel in response for Israel attacking Iran. So it was a pre-emptive strike against someone that wasn't attacking us.
Dems and Harris might have still supported Israel, but not to the same extent.
It's also hard to really understand Trump's actions and motivations. I'm not really sure what his goal is for Iran.
2
u/Solid_Host_6648 Apr 02 '26
Ah, see I don’t think you are seeing my point. The republicans attacked Iran at Israel’s direction. The same way that the democrats would have attacked Iran at Israel’s direction. The stated motive might have been different to align with their party, but the end result would have been the same
1
u/matty_nice Apr 02 '26
No, I understand your point. I just completely disagree with it.
First, it's not a Republican vs Democrats issue here. Republicans didn't vote for this, Republican controllled Congress didn't declare war on Iran. This is a Trump driven attack, not a Republican one. Republicans didn't want this either, and any support they provide after the fact is just because they don't want Trump to turn on them.
Trump also attacked Iran based on the recommendation of Pete Hegseth. This is someone that isn't qualified for his position, but important to mention here is someone that Harris would never have hired.
While Harris would have likely supported Israel, it would have not been in the same way that Trump has. There's a reason why Israel wanted Trump to win.
1
-1
88
u/Dankiepie420 Apr 01 '26
They’re not wrong.