Iran

#5,752
#5,752
LSU-SIU said:
I'm sure they want nukes because they were really bombed for not having them.
Click to expand...
So much of the Democrat talking points don't add up. Some say they moved the enriched uranium. Others say they weren't enriching military grade uranium.

As for your point, yeah they didn't have it yet. That's the whole point
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#5,753
#5,753
lukeneyland said:
Anyone that thinks Iran was not enriching Uranium with objective of weaponizing it is brain dead. The question is how close they were to achieving it. I don’t know the answer and doubt any civilians do. But why wait for there to be a problem? It’s better to handle them now while they are impotent
Click to expand...
why was Iran enriching uranium under a mountain if using it for just civilian purposes
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol and Orange_Crush
#5,760
#5,760
n_huffhines said:
This TACO thing is a big old L for the DNC. They're literally begging Trump to do stuff they shouldn't like by calling him chicken about it.

The resistance is as dumb as the empire.
Click to expand...
I thought the same thing. They were making fun of him for supposedly chickening out on bombing Iran, and I was like "Well isn't that what you want?"
 
#5,761
#5,761
McDad said:
Do you know if that is referencing the Tulsi statement which has been debunked as misleading because it cut off her full train of thought?
Click to expand...
Grok says your wrong. So does PBS and multiple other outlets, so onus now on you to prove otherwise...

Tulsi Gabbard’s March 2025 testimony as Director of National Intelligence stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) assessed Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not authorized a nuclear weapons program since its suspension in 2003. She noted, however, that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was at unprecedented levels for a non-nuclear-weapons state and that public discussions in Iran about nuclear weapons were increasing, potentially emboldening advocates within its leadership.

There is no evidence that Gabbard ever testified that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, so there was no such statement to debunk. However, her March testimony that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon faced scrutiny and criticism later in 2025, particularly after President Donald Trump publicly contradicted her, claiming Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear weapon. In June 2025, Gabbard adjusted her public stance, posting on X that U.S. intelligence indicated Iran could produce a nuclear weapon “within weeks to months” if it decided to finalize assembly, aligning more closely with Trump’s position. She claimed her earlier testimony was taken out of context by “dishonest media.”

Key Points on “Debunking” or Challenges to Her Testimony:

No Reversal of IC Assessment: A Reuters source with access to U.S. intelligence reports confirmed in June 2025 that the IC’s March assessment, as presented by Gabbard, had not changed. The IC still judged Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, though it could take up to three years to develop a deliverable warhead if authorized.

Expert Skepticism: David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector, questioned Gabbard’s June 2025 claim that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in weeks, estimating it would take at least six months for a crude device and one to two years for a missile-deliverable warhead.

Political Context: Gabbard’s shift followed Trump’s rebukes and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian facilities in June 2025, which Israel justified by claiming Iran was nearing nuclear capability. Some sources, like WikiLeaks and posts on X, resurfaced Gabbard’s March testimony to question the rationale for Israel’s strikes, suggesting they were based on exaggerated or misleading claims.

Media and Congressional Reaction: Gabbard accused the media of distorting her testimony, and allies like Vice President JD Vance defended her, arguing her full March statement highlighted Iran’s potential nuclear threat due to its uranium stockpile. However, some senators ignored or contradicted her testimony, claiming Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb, which critics like Responsible Statecraft suggested was driven by pro-war agendas.

Conclusion: Gabbard never testified that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, so no such statement was debunked. Her March 2025 claim that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon was consistent with the IC’s assessment at the time and was not directly debunked by subsequent intelligence, though her later shift to suggest Iran could produce a weapon quickly drew skepticism from experts. The controversy largely stems from political disagreements, particularly Trump’s dismissal of her testimony and pressure to align with Israel’s narrative, rather than a clear refutation of the IC’s findings. Posts on X and some reports highlight ongoing debates about whether Iran’s nuclear threat was overstated to justify military action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#5,762
#5,762
05_never_again said:
I thought the same thing. They were making fun of him for supposedly chickening out on bombing Iran, and I was like "Well isn't that what you want?"
Click to expand...

On that one, I actually think many D's do want to bomb Iran, they just don't want to indicate that.
 
#5,763
#5,763
05_never_again said:
I thought the same thing. They were making fun of him for supposedly chickening out on bombing Iran, and I was like "Well isn't that what you want?"
Click to expand...
I view TACO more through the lens of Trump says he's going to do something (a threat) and then normally fails to follow through with the threat. It's a reasonable and rational critique of our big mouth President... You know the same guy who calls our Federal Reserve Charman names... And oh btw Trump appointed Powell.

I believe we once had an actual good President who said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

Donnie does precisely the opposite. Despise him for that.

AMAZES ME THAT TENNESSEANS ACTUAL LOVE A NEW JERSEY FORMER DEMOCRAT BULL **** TALKING REAL ESTATE SALESMAN / COMPLETE DOUCHEBAG.

See.. I can use all caps. Cool.

What names has Trump called federal reserve chairman Powell?

President Donald Trump has used several derogatory names and phrases to refer to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, particularly in the context of criticizing Powell's monetary policy decisions, such as his stance on interest rates. Based on available information from posts on X and web sources, here are some of the names and descriptors Trump has used for Powell:

"Mr. Too Late": Trump has referred to Powell as "Mr. Too Late" to criticize him for not lowering interest rates quickly enough, suggesting Powell's actions are delayed and ineffective.

"Major Loser": Trump has called Powell a "major loser," particularly in social media posts, to express frustration with Powell's refusal to cut interest rates in alignment with Trump's economic goals.

"Numbskull": In a June 2025 post on X, Trump labeled Powell a "numbskull" as part of a broader attack on his leadership and decision-making.

"Dumb Guy": Trump has described Powell as a "dumb guy" in the same June 2025 post, further questioning his competence.

"Obvious Trump Hater": Trump has accused Powell of being an "obvious Trump hater," implying that Powell's monetary policy decisions are politically motivated against him.

"Total and Complete Moron": In the same June 2025 outburst, Trump escalated his rhetoric by calling Powell a "total and complete moron," reflecting intense dissatisfaction with Powell's tenure.

"Always TOO LATE AND WRONG": Trump has used this phrase to criticize Powell's timing and judgment, particularly regarding interest rate policies, as seen in social media posts.
 
Last edited:
#5,764
#5,764
MontyPython said:
I view TACO more through the lens of Trump says he's going to do something (a threat) and then normally fails to follow through with the threat. It's a reasonable and rational critique of our big mouth President... You know the same guy who calls our Federal Reserve Charman names... And oh btw Trump appointed Powell.

What names has Trump called federal reserve chairman Powell


President Donald Trump has used several derogatory names and phrases to refer to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, particularly in the context of criticizing Powell's monetary policy decisions, such as his stance on interest rates. Based on available information from posts on X and web sources, here are some of the names and descriptors Trump has used for Powell:


"Mr. Too Late": Trump has referred to Powell as "Mr. Too Late" to criticize him for not lowering interest rates quickly enough, suggesting Powell's actions are delayed and ineffective."Major Loser": Trump has called Powell a "major loser," particularly in social media posts, to express frustration with Powell's refusal to cut interest rates in alignment with Trump's economic goals."Numbskull": In a June 2025 post on X, Trump labeled Powell a "numbskull" as part of a broader attack on his leadership and decision-making."Dumb Guy": Trump has described Powell as a "dumb guy" in the same June 2025 post, further questioning his competence."Obvious Trump Hater": Trump has accused Powell of being an "obvious Trump hater," implying that Powell's monetary policy decisions are politically motivated against him."Total and Complete Moron": In the same June 2025 outburst, Trump escalated his rhetoric by calling Powell a "total and complete moron," reflecting intense dissatisfaction with Powell's tenure."Always TOO LATE AND WRONG": Trump has used this phrase to criticize Powell's timing and judgment, particularly regarding interest rate policies, as seen in social media posts.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you guys ultimately like this TACO thing? Why tease him when it's what you actually want?
 
#5,765
#5,765
just bob said:
Wouldn't you guys ultimately like this TACO thing? Why tease him when it's what you actually want?
Click to expand...
No dip ****. Speaking for myself, bombing Iran was a mistake.

But do tell... Based upon Trump's years of denigrating every past president for getting involved with foreign wars. You're going to tell me that you knew he was going to actually bomb Iran when he ran on the platform of Mr Peace President?

Give me a ****ing break.
 
#5,768
#5,768
MontyPython said:
Grok says your wrong. So does PBS and multiple other outlets, so onus now on you to prove otherwise...

Tulsi Gabbard’s March 2025 testimony as Director of National Intelligence stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) assessed Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not authorized a nuclear weapons program since its suspension in 2003. She noted, however, that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was at unprecedented levels for a non-nuclear-weapons state and that public discussions in Iran about nuclear weapons were increasing, potentially emboldening advocates within its leadership.

There is no evidence that Gabbard ever testified that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, so there was no such statement to debunk. However, her March testimony that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon faced scrutiny and criticism later in 2025, particularly after President Donald Trump publicly contradicted her, claiming Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear weapon. In June 2025, Gabbard adjusted her public stance, posting on X that U.S. intelligence indicated Iran could produce a nuclear weapon “within weeks to months” if it decided to finalize assembly, aligning more closely with Trump’s position. She claimed her earlier testimony was taken out of context by “dishonest media.”

Key Points on “Debunking” or Challenges to Her Testimony:

No Reversal of IC Assessment: A Reuters source with access to U.S. intelligence reports confirmed in June 2025 that the IC’s March assessment, as presented by Gabbard, had not changed. The IC still judged Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, though it could take up to three years to develop a deliverable warhead if authorized.

Expert Skepticism: David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector, questioned Gabbard’s June 2025 claim that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in weeks, estimating it would take at least six months for a crude device and one to two years for a missile-deliverable warhead.

Political Context: Gabbard’s shift followed Trump’s rebukes and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian facilities in June 2025, which Israel justified by claiming Iran was nearing nuclear capability. Some sources, like WikiLeaks and posts on X, resurfaced Gabbard’s March testimony to question the rationale for Israel’s strikes, suggesting they were based on exaggerated or misleading claims.

Media and Congressional Reaction: Gabbard accused the media of distorting her testimony, and allies like Vice President JD Vance defended her, arguing her full March statement highlighted Iran’s potential nuclear threat due to its uranium stockpile. However, some senators ignored or contradicted her testimony, claiming Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb, which critics like Responsible Statecraft suggested was driven by pro-war agendas.

Conclusion: Gabbard never testified that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, so no such statement was debunked. Her March 2025 claim that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon was consistent with the IC’s assessment at the time and was not directly debunked by subsequent intelligence, though her later shift to suggest Iran could produce a weapon quickly drew skepticism from experts. The controversy largely stems from political disagreements, particularly Trump’s dismissal of her testimony and pressure to align with Israel’s narrative, rather than a clear refutation of the IC’s findings. Posts on X and some reports highlight ongoing debates about whether Iran’s nuclear threat was overstated to justify military action.
Click to expand...
Uh...how could I be wrong by asking you if this is referencing that moment? Maybe you fight so much you see battles where they don't exist but I asked because I thought you would be familiar with the source you linked.

So, thanks for answering, I guess.
 
#5,769
#5,769
McDad said:
Uh...how could I be wrong by asking you if this is referencing that moment? Maybe you fight so much you see battles where they don't exist but I asked because I thought you would be familiar with the source you linked.

So, thanks for answering, I guess.
Click to expand...
Wut?

Gabbard testified that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuke bomb. This position of hers was never debunked.
 
#5,772
#5,772
MontyPython said:
Wut?

Gabbard testified that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuke bomb. This position of hers was never debunked.
Click to expand...
A clip of her talking about Iran's program circulated here last week after showing up on all the socials. It was misleading because it cut off her video prematurely in a way to edit what she said. The full statement was different in context compared to the edited one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top