Politics

[KJE81]

View attachment 758217

You screaming Harpies on the left have more undiagnosed cluster B personality disorders than my X wife!

This quote from an article today on CNN was quite good I thought:

"Some critics lampooned another TACO (“Trump always chickens out”) moment. On the surface, the president’s decision is just another where he adopted a maximalist position only to back down in a way that erased his red lines and raised doubts about his credibility. If Iran does indeed get to control access to the strait during the two-week ceasefire, it would underscore perceptions that Trump has no good options in a war that slipped out of his control and that he is desperate to end.

Trump fans, however, will credit the president with snatching yet another win with the shock negotiating tactics of a real estate shark. Conservative media quickly swung into action to spin up a Trumpian triumph. The implication is that Trump’s unorthodox threats drove Iran to the negotiating table."

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/08/politics/trump-iran-taco-ceasefire-strait-of-hormuz-analysis

This is of course from main stream media which it not well liked among the Trump fans here...dont know which news sources are approved by them but this is what Fox News wrote, they basically just quoted Trumps tweets/truths and chosen parts of the Iranian statement, perhaps they found it to hard to spin it as a big win?

Trump agrees to 2-week ceasefire if Iran opens Strait of Hormuz

President Donald Trump announces a two-week delay of a planned Iran strike following talks with Pakistani leaders and progress toward a potential agreement with Iran.

www.foxnews.com

 

[skydiver386]

This quote from an article today on CNN was quite good I thought:

"Some critics lampooned another TACO (“Trump always chickens out”) moment. On the surface, the president’s decision is just another where he adopted a maximalist position only to back down in a way that erased his red lines and raised doubts about his credibility. If Iran does indeed get to control access to the strait during the two-week ceasefire, it would underscore perceptions that Trump has no good options in a war that slipped out of his control and that he is desperate to end.

Trump fans, however, will credit the president with snatching yet another win with the shock negotiating tactics of a real estate shark. Conservative media quickly swung into action to spin up a Trumpian triumph. The implication is that Trump’s unorthodox threats drove Iran to the negotiating table."

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/08/politics/trump-iran-taco-ceasefire-strait-of-hormuz-analysis

This is of course from main stream media which it not well liked among the Trump fans here...dont know which news sources are approved by them but this is what Fox News wrote, they basically just quoted Trumps tweets/truths and chosen parts of the Iranian statement, perhaps they found it to hard to spin it as a big win?

Trump agrees to 2-week ceasefire if Iran opens Strait of Hormuz

President Donald Trump announces a two-week delay of a planned Iran strike following talks with Pakistani leaders and progress toward a potential agreement with Iran.

www.foxnews.com

Your entire post misses my point.

 

[KJE81]

Your entire post misses my point.

I am sorry that I missunderstood you, I thought your point simply was that it is wrong to call Trumps latest decision regarding Iran a TACO-moment, thats why I quoted those parts of the article showing that it can be perceived as a TACO-moment.

And before any Trump-apologetic gets started obviously it is much better with a truce then a nuclear strike that he seemed to be treating them with even if that truce seems to give Iran control over the straits.

I think that this probably was percieved like a very scary moment by many people, except of course all the Trump voters who perhaps knew that it was just his special style of negotiations at work, but what about the rest of the world, they might have been afraid that he was actually going to use nuclear weapons on Iran...

Another quote from the article linked in my last post:

"Trump’s day on the brink also raised grave constitutional questions exemplified by Leavitt’s statement that “only the President knows … what he will do.”

This is not how the American system of checks and balances and divided power is supposed to work. For many hours, a president who believes he has unrestrained authority was credibly believed to be on the verge of killing millions of foreign civilians in a war for which he sought no congressional authorization; which has been plagued by vague, contradictory rationales; and for which he has no apparent exit strategy.

In years to come, Trump’s vise in Iran may be seen as a cautionary tale of what happens when a president appoints a pliant Cabinet and when a one-party Congress abdicates its duties of oversight."

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

except the supreme court has ruled in many other cases that one branch of gov cant delegate away their core constitutional authority. One would think "going to war" is covered under that legal standard.

And yet they haven’t made a ruling on this. So that means it’s in effect. Makes perfect sense to let a president have some leeway for a short period of time to concerning military action.

 

[skydiver386]

My entire point was that the screaming Harpies on the left are never happy with anything a Republican President does.

They tune in to their favorite leftist news, get the latest buzz words and talking points, and go forth equipped with a bad case of cluster B personality disorders to dispense large amounts of what Harry Truman called "Fertilizer".

 

[Jeff505]

Trump started a war with Iran and the constitution requires congress to declare war. Also tariffs and a whole bunch of other stuff, but now that Trump's in charge Republicans just ignore the constitution. You see the constitution is like the budget deficit, it only matters when a democrat is president.

I had forgotten the there was ” a whole bunch of other stuff”, thanks for clarifying. Now it all makes sense.

 

[Hogpatrol]

The King's Gambit? Two weeks to resupply our aircraft, ships and bases with new and probably better weapons, maintain and repair, then all hell breaks loose. Those lunatics think being dead is better than being alive aren't going to settle. No problem obliging them. "The strong take from the weak. The smart take from the strong."

 

[KJE81]

My entire point was that the screaming Harpies on the left are never happy with anything a Republican President does.

They tune in to their favorite leftist news, get the latest buzz words and talking points, and go forth equipped with a bad case of cluster B personality disorders to dispense large amounts of what Harry Truman called "Fertilizer".

I understand, I like to consider myself a conservative (always have been voting for the main conservative party here in Sweden) but that probably means I am more of a centrist/moderate on the US left-to-right-scale.

 

[Brent in Az]

Biden sticks to Trumps withdrawal deadline from George W Bush's and the Republican Neo-Con's war in Afghanistan and it's somehow his fault that people died? At least he had the balls to actually get us out of there, something Trump couldn't even do his first time around. And yet you don't seem to have the same disdain for Trump getting 15 American's killed in his unconstituional war of choice in Iran thus far...hypocrite much?

The. Leftist flying Monkey easily forget Biden left $6B of military hardware in the hands of terrorists.
Forget not all the Americans that have been killed by Bidens illegal aliens.
Democrats are treasonous trash. So are their constituents

 

[Brent in Az]

Well thats the war powers act, and even if that is constitutional, which it isn't, since the supreme court has already stated that once branch of government can't delegate away its core constitutional powers to another branch....but he also violated that by not notifying congress 48 hours in advance.

He did notify them. Just not the Democrat traitors, and leakers.

 

[Brent in Az]

Trump started a war with Iran and the constitution requires congress to declare war. Also tariffs and a whole bunch of other stuff, but now that Trump's in charge Republicans just ignore the constitution. You see the constitution is like the budget deficit, it only matters when a democrat is president.

Hypocrite Dems hate the Constitution. They only bring it up when it serves their hypocritic narratives.

 

[jeanes]

What happened to all the reports on the price of oil?

 

[KJE81]

What happened to all the reports on the price of oil?

I guess they were deemed not news worthy any longer which is weird because they are still at rather high levels compared to before the war begun, but then again, media seems to have the attention span of a five year old

As of April 8, 2026, Brent crude oil prices are around $94–$95 per barrel, having dropped from a peak near $120 following a announced two-week ceasefire. Despite this sharp decline, prices remain roughly 30% higher than the pre-war level of approximately $70–$72, which was holding in late February 2026 before the conflict began.

 

[Red Leg]

I am sorry that I missunderstood you, I thought your point simply was that it is wrong to call Trumps latest decision regarding Iran a TACO-moment, thats why I quoted those parts of the article showing that it can be perceived as a TACO-moment.

And before any Trump-apologetic gets started obviously it is much better with a truce then a nuclear strike that he seemed to be treating them with even if that truce seems to give Iran control over the straits.

I think that this probably was percieved like a very scary moment by many people, except of course all the Trump voters who perhaps knew that it was just his special style of negotiations at work, but what about the rest of the world, they might have been afraid that he was actually going to use nuclear weapons on Iran...

Another quote from the article linked in my last post:

"Trump’s day on the brink also raised grave constitutional questions exemplified by Leavitt’s statement that “only the President knows … what he will do.”

This is not how the American system of checks and balances and divided power is supposed to work. For many hours, a president who believes he has unrestrained authority was credibly believed to be on the verge of killing millions of foreign civilians in a war for which he sought no congressional authorization; which has been plagued by vague, contradictory rationales; and for which he has no apparent exit strategy.

In years to come, Trump’s vise in Iran may be seen as a cautionary tale of what happens when a president appoints a pliant Cabinet and when a one-party Congress abdicates its duties of oversight."

Whenever I go abroad, I am so despondent when I realize the average informed European, who tries to follow some English news content, only sees CNN international. Even supposedly moderate raters of our news services consider CNN left of center in a more normal political climate. For the last decade it has prosecuted an unrelenting campaign against Donald Trump and by extension the Republican party.

As a network, it has terrible viewership in this country. Its evening programing averages a 797,000 individuals, and that is after a 54% INCREASE in Q1 of this year (ADWEEK stats). To remind, that is in a nation of nearly 350 million people. Moreover, the Pew, Media, and Shorenstein Research centers all report CNN's coverage of the President to be unrelentingly negative. Over the last decade, 90+% of that coverage has been negative. And it has been almost as bad in the other major English language option. During the same period 74% of the BBC's coverage of Trump has been negative.

Thus, in the English language, Europeans have been essentially propagandized by the American left for a decade.

For instance, this paragraph in the article you quoted is pure editorialism.

This is not how the American system of checks and balances and divided power is supposed to work. For many hours, a president who believes he has unrestrained authority was credibly believed to be on the verge of killing millions of foreign civilians in a war for which he sought no congressional authorization; which has been plagued by vague, contradictory rationales; and for which he has no apparent exit strategy.

This is exactly how our foreign policy, under Democrat and Republican presidents has worked since our last declaration of war in December 1941. Yes, sometimes with the cover of a UN resolution, but more typically under the War Powers Act, which if pinned to the floor with a pistol to his head, even Chuck Schumer would be forced to admit the administration has complied.

And if anyone really thinks we were about to use nuclear weapons, they have lost their minds.

 

[Red Leg]

Well to be honest: it was built by Russia across the sea channel.
It is a prime target for Ukrainians for last 4 years.

At first that bridge was essential to have Crimea connected with Russia mainland.
Now the bridge is not of vital importance, because Russians created a land corridor to Crimea by annexations of eastern Ukranian regions.

It does remain a prime target for Ukraine, for propaganda purposes.
However, 4 years under attack, the bridge still holds.
It (prima facie) says something of Russian air defenses. While the air defenses in the modern day of drone swarms and combined missile attacks are not perfect (we can think of other recent examples), the bridge still standing does say something beyond daily propaganda of Russian air defenses.

The Kerch Strait (where bridge is located) and Sea of Azov are considered “internal waters” by both Russia and Ukraine under a 2003 bilateral agreement.
That means:
They are not treated like open international straits (such as Gibraltar or Hormuz).
Navigation is regulated by the coastal states, not freely open to all countries.

No, but it does say something about Ukrainian ability to deal with those air defenses. Were that the US Air Force or Navy tasked with taking down that bridge how long do you believe it would be left standing?

 

[KJE81]

Whenever I go abroad, I am so despondent when I realize the average informed European, who tries to follow some English news content, only sees CNN international. Even supposedly moderate raters of our news services consider CNN left of center in a more normal political climate. For the last decade it has prosecuted an unrelenting campaign against Donald Trump and by extension the Republican party.

As a network, it has terrible viewership in this country. Its evening programing averages a 797,000 individuals, and that is after a 54% INCREASE in Q1 of this year (ADWEEK stats). To remind, that is in a nation of nearly 350 million people. Moreover, the Pew, Media, and Shorenstein Research centers all report CNN's coverage of the President to be unrelentingly negative. Over the last decade, 90+% of that coverage has been negative. And it has been almost as bad in the other major English language option. During the same period 74% of the BBC's coverage of Trump has been negative.

Thus, in the English language, Europeans have been essentially propagandized by the American left for a decade.

For instance, this paragraph in the article you quoted is pure editorialism.

This is not how the American system of checks and balances and divided power is supposed to work. For many hours, a president who believes he has unrestrained authority was credibly believed to be on the verge of killing millions of foreign civilians in a war for which he sought no congressional authorization; which has been plagued by vague, contradictory rationales; and for which he has no apparent exit strategy.

This is exactly how our foreign policy, under Democrat and Republican presidents has worked since our last declaration of war in December 1941. Yes, sometimes with the cover of a UN resolution, but more typically under the War Powers Act, which if pinned to the floor with a pistol to his head, even Chuck Schumer would be forced to admit the administration has complied.

And if anyone really thinks we were about to use nuclear weapons, they have lost their minds.

Are there any regular news outlets you would recommend instead?

 

[Betterinthebush]

@KJE81

I’ve used this news aggregator for years:

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

The Greatest News Site On The Internet. Home of CFP Nation.

citizenfreepress.com

 

[R.N.L]

Are there any regular news outlets you would recommend instead?

Also interested in this

 

[mdwest]

This Indian source seems to present about as neutrally as possible… although there is a clear disdain for anything “Pakistan”, and Pakistan has obviously been heavily involved in negotiations…

https://www.firstpost.com/world/us-iran-israel-war-live-updates-strait-of-hormuz-trump-deadline-kharg-island-attack-liveblog-13997676.html

What many of or European membership can’t seem to figure out is ALL media is biased… and if you only try to obtain your information from media sources that pander to your political leanings then you by default become biased, and unfortunately largely uninformed and unaware of realities…

I acknowledge I lean right… so I purposefully listen to not only Fox, but also CNN.. I also listen to Sky, Al Jezerra, a handful of Asian sources, and will even periodically read what the BBC has to say..

Then take it all in.. see what is consistently being reported across all outlets.. also what is intentionally being left out by certain outlets… etc… and then use a bit of critical thinking to deduce reality as opposed to taking what some asswipe like Joe Scarborough says as truth just because he said it…

It’s also important to look into who the reporters are, not just the news agencies… there are people out there who make a living bashing the left.. there are people that make a living bashing the right.. there are people that make their living crying about Trump.. and people that make their living crying that the world will end tomorrow..

Those types of people rarely have much to offer… they’re simply dolling out whatever tripe they can sell whether it’s only 5% truth or 5% fiction in an effort to get another paycheck out of you..

 

[Hogpatrol]

Are there any regular news outlets you would recommend instead?

AllSides | Balanced news via media bias ratings for an unbiased news perspective

See issues and political news with news bias revealed. Non-partisan, crowd-sourced technology shows all sides so you can decide.

www.allsides.com