American voters are onto Trump's game

[Man With A Plan]

The first seems to me like a meaningless question. I'll demonstrate.

Ask the American people if they want, China, Russia, India, N-Korea or Pakistan to have nuclear weapons and they will say no. In fact, a considerable amount don't like the US to have nuclear weapons.

The relevant follow-up question here is, are you willing to pay this particular price to stop them.

So, you're right. Polling is about the questions you ask and yours was worse.

I'll answer the second bit too.

Trump's ripping up the Obama deal, a deal that would have taken their enriched uranium out of the country, put their production sites under international inspection up until 2025 has made Iran aquiring nuclear weapons more likely. To the point were bombing the facilities in the hope of stopping them, followed by a full blown war, was the option chosen. An option that's having severe worldwide consequences.

That is the reality behind the question.

I'm amused that you think anything in the deal that Obama struck with Iran would have kept them from enriching uranium, Forkup. You base that assumption on what...how the Mullahs have kept their word in the past? Your kind of naive would be cute if it wasn't so dangerous.

 

[forkup]

I'm amused that you think anything in the deal that Obama struck with Iran would have kept them from enriching uranium, Forkup. You base that assumption on what...how the Mullahs have kept their word in the past? Your kind of naive would be cute if it wasn't so dangerous.

No, I base that on the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which conditioned sanctions relief on intrusive, on-site inspections, not just of enrichment facilities, but across the supply chain, verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

This wasn’t about trusting Iran. It was about verifying what they were doing. At the time, the IAEA was verifying compliance with those limits.

In fact, you're spouting the same bs as the Bush administration during the secomd Gulf war. "Never mind what the imspectors say, we can't trust Saddam Hussein so we'll just attack." Remind me how that turned out?

If your argument is that withdrawing from that framework and relying on bombing makes a nuclear weapon less likely, you have to explain how. A bombing campaign removes visibility, you lose inspections, you lose monitoring, and you’re left hoping you’ve hit everything and that nothing was hidden or dispersed.

The obvious problem is that “just bombing” doesn’t solve that. Any durable solution still requires inspections and verification. That or a sustained ground war and occupation. In practice, that means something structurally similar to what already existed, only without the problems the world has now.

Trump in his wisdom has created a problem, that he tried to rectify by killing thousands of people and plunging large parts of the world in chaos. And as far as I can determine the best case scenario will end up in the exact place we started before Trump created the problem.

 

[Man With A Plan]

No, I base that on the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which conditioned sanctions relief on intrusive, on-site inspections, not just of enrichment facilities, but across the supply chain, verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

This wasn’t about trusting Iran. It was about verifying what they were doing. At the time, the IAEA was verifying compliance with those limits.

In fact, you're spouting the same bs as the Bush administration during the secomd Gulf war. "Never mind what the imspectors say, we can't trust Saddam Hussein so we'll just attack." Remind me how that turned out?

If your argument is that withdrawing from that framework and relying on bombing makes a nuclear weapon less likely, you have to explain how. A bombing campaign removes visibility, you lose inspections, you lose monitoring, and you’re left hoping you’ve hit everything and that nothing was hidden or dispersed.

The obvious problem is that “just bombing” doesn’t solve that. Any durable solution still requires inspections and verification. That or a sustained ground war and occupation. In practice, that means something structurally similar to what already existed, only without the problems the world has now.

Trump in his wisdom has created a problem, that he tried to rectify by killing thousands of people and plunging large parts of the world in chaos. And as far as I can determine the best case scenario will end up in the exact place we started before Trump created the problem.

Remind me of the last time that Iran hasn't lied about it's atomic bomb intentions, Forkup! The Left's contention that Obama bribing Iran with billions of dollars in order to get them to promise not to misbehave was some master stroke of foreign policy borders on farce. The mullahs never had any intention of stopping their program to produce nuclear weapons. They've literally been laughing at Obama for a decade.

As for the "best case" scenario of this? That would be the Iranian people taking back control of their country from a bunch of religious fanatics that have been the #1 sponsor of world wide terror for 40 years. It would be the money spigot being turned off for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. It would be an expansion of the Abraham Accords with REAL and LASTING peace being brought to the Middle East!

 

[1srelluc]

Gas is around $3.78 in my AO this morning.....That's 22 cents less than two weeks ago.

 

[berg80]

The war will end when he says, "I've won, and I want a Nobel Peace Prize."

Thankfully, the world community is not as gullible as The Following. No one who started a war deserves a Nobel prize because of a negotiated end to it. An end nowhere in sight.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Thankfully, the world community is not as gullible as The Following. No one who started a war deserves a Nobel prize because of a negotiated end to it. An end nowhere in sight.

You do know that the person who the Nobel Committee DID award the Nobel Peace Prize to publicly stated that Trump deserved it and not her?

 

[forkup]

Remind me of the last time that Iran hasn't lied about it's atomic bomb

According to the IAEA, when they had the Obama deal. If you want to claim this was false you'll need to source that.

As for farce. I'm bookmarking this "giving Iran billions of dollars" remark and predict you'll celebrate bying off Iran's nuclear program as a "master stroke of foreign policy", before long, because the truth is that's one of only 2 options the US government has. The other one being boots on the ground.

Something that would be political suicide.

If years of listening to you guys have taught me one thing, is that I can count on you guys polishing whatever turd Trump offers up, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look.

 

[jacksonlamb]

You do know that the person who the Nobel Committee DID award the Nobel Peace Prize to publicly stated that Trump deserved it and not her?

She has no say on who the board picks, I would imagine.

 

[HikerGuy83]

She has no say on who the board picks, I would imagine.

What a lame response. Do they teach you guys to be morons or does it come naturally to you?

If she said that, it has some weight. Cry all you want.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I base that on the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which conditioned sanctions relief on intrusive, on-site inspections, not just of enrichment facilities, but across the supply chain, verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

This wasn’t about trusting Iran. It was about verifying what they were doing. At the time, the IAEA was verifying compliance with those limits.

In fact, you're spouting the same bs as the Bush administration during the secomd Gulf war. "Never mind what the imspectors say, we can't trust Saddam Hussein so we'll just attack." Remind me how that turned out?

If your argument is that withdrawing from that framework and relying on bombing makes a nuclear weapon less likely, you have to explain how. A bombing campaign removes visibility, you lose inspections, you lose monitoring, and you’re left hoping you’ve hit everything and that nothing was hidden or dispersed.

The obvious problem is that “just bombing” doesn’t solve that. Any durable solution still requires inspections and verification. That or a sustained ground war and occupation. In practice, that means something structurally similar to what already existed, only without the problems the world has now.

Trump in his wisdom has created a problem, that he tried to rectify by killing thousands of people and plunging large parts of the world in chaos. And as far as I can determine the best case scenario will end up in the exact place we started before Trump created the problem.

No, I base that on the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which conditioned sanctions relief on intrusive, on-site inspections, not just of enrichment facilities, but across the supply chain, verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

How many military bases were inspected?

 

[jacksonlamb]

What a lame response. Do they teach you guys to be morons or does it come naturally to you?

If she said that, it has some weight. Cry all you want.

It's a perfect answer. She has no power, and you do not as well. So helpless. So play with your imogees and feel powerful.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It's a perfect answer.

You are a legend in your own mind.

She has no power, and you do not as well.

Never claimed to. But that isn't the point. You know that, but it just chaps your rear end that someone would say it.

So helpless.

In what regard. I have the WH/house/senate/SCOTUS/More governorships and state chambers...by far.

You were saying........

So play with your imogees and feel powerful.

Better than what you play with.

 

[jacksonlamb]

The point is she is not a reputable source, and neither are you.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Anyone who votes democrat is not onto anything.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Anyone who votes democrat is not onto anything.

They are speaking the truth, and you are opposing it, ever so poorly.

 

[Stann]

I am no longer worried about what will happen with the war. Though it will deal gas dropping below $3.00 until next year, there is going to be massive war damage to America. There may be a solid recession as an inevitable result. But I am not worried. Why? Trump is playing a game with markets and raking in a fortune with his buddies. The war will end when he says, "I've won, and I want a Nobel Peace Prize."

I don't think he will get one. Why? American voters are on to him. Check all of the polls. He is upside down at 1:2.


View attachment 1246146



Here’s where public polling stands right now on Trump, the war in Iran, and the economy, based on the most recent data available (all from April 19, 2026):

​

• 37% approve, 63% disapprove — Trump’s lowest point of his second term.

Public opinion is strongly negative:

• About two‑thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Iran war.
• 54% strongly disapprove, with only 33% approving of his handling of the conflict.
• Multiple polls show the war is a major driver of his declining approval.

This is Trump’s worst-performing issue area:

• Only 32% approve of his handling of inflation and cost of living; 68% disapprove.
• Two‑thirds of Americans say rising prices are a major concern.
• Gas prices and war‑related cost increases are specifically cited as drivers of disapproval.
• One‑third say the U.S. is on the right track; two‑thirds say it’s on the wrong track — the most pessimistic reading since Trump returned to office.

Even among Republicans:

• Approval has slipped from 87% → 83% in recent months.
• Strong approval has dropped 6 points (58% → 52%).

www.aol.com/articles/trumps-approval-rating-drops-over-152516996.html?utm_source=copilot.com
/www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/poll-trumps-approval-rating-hits-second-term-low-economy-iran-war-rcna331462?utm_source=copilot.com
www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-walloped-fresh-polling-blow-173147073.html?utm_source=copilot.com

He still has more than 8 of 10 GOP. But women, under 34, and indies are saying, basically, "**** him and his buddies," this fall. You know what Dems think.

His game has always been about him and his rich buddies. No one else matters on his world. Everyone else is just someone to use and abuse.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Anyone who votes democrat is not onto anything.

Except each other.

That seems to be true.

 

[my2¢]

But I am not worried. Why? Trump is playing a game with markets and raking in a fortune with his buddies. The war will end when he says, "I've won, and I want a Nobel Peace Prize."

The combination of power in the hands of a narcissistic who is up in his years is why I see cause for worry.

 

[Man With A Plan]

She has no say on who the board picks, I would imagine.

I'm simply pointing out that even the person who the Nobel Committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to thinks that Trump should have won it for ending 8 wars. That will never happen though...because the Nobel Committee is completely constituted with far left ideologues.

 

[Man With A Plan]

His game has always been about him and his rich buddies. No one else matters on his world. Everyone else is just someone to use and abuse.

You're amusing, Stann. I imagine you loved Barack Obama? So let's compare Barry to Donald. Which one left office worth less than when he entered? Which one has never taken a salary but rather worked for free? You think Trump only worries about the rich? Kindly explain why the income gap between the wealthy and blue collar workers exploded under Barack Obama and decreased under Donald Trump!
Obama "talked" a good game but he was ALWAYS about hooking up the well connected! He didn't buy that mansion on Martha's Vineyard because he's a "man of the people"! He bought that property because his wealthy neighbors there ARE his people!