Except that Israel has had nuclear capability ( approx. 90 warheads ) for over 30 years.
They have never threatened to use them; they don't even acknowledge having them.

Do you trust the religious leaders of |Iran to do the same ?
"Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government has executed thousands of individuals, using capital punishment to suppress dissent and enforce strict Islamic law. Key periods include a surge in 2025 with over 1,639 deaths and the 1988 mass execution of roughly 30,000 political prisoners. Executions often target protesters, activists, and minorities."
According to Amnesty International, Iran was responsible for 64% of all recorded state-sponsored executions, worldwide, in 2024; with the mass protests of last year, that percentage is indubitably higher yet for 2025.

Do you really think the MAD doctrine works when a government doesn't give a damn about its people ?

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

Except that Israel has had nuclear capability ( approx. 90 warheads ) for over 30 years.
They have never threatened to use them; they don't even acknowledge having them.

Do you trust the religious leaders of |Iran to do the same ?
"Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government has executed thousands of individuals, using capital punishment to suppress dissent and enforce strict Islamic law. Key periods include a surge in 2025 with over 1,639 deaths and the 1988 mass execution of roughly 30,000 political prisoners. Executions often target protesters, activists, and minorities."
According to Amnesty International, Iran was responsible for 64% of all recorded state-sponsored executions, worldwide, in 2024; with the mass protests of last year, that percentage is indubitably higher yet for 2025.

Do you really think the MAD doctrine works when a government doesn't give a damn about its people ?

I think that goes towards Iran as a theocratic irrational actor doctrine. I do not think that internal violence is necessarily a good predictor regarding nuclear use. The Soviet Union is a good example, to that effect. One could make a similar argument where many more lives than since the start of the Ukraine war, for no obviously good reasons. Yet they have refrained from nuking the region.

While they might have little regard for human lives, they are interested in maintaining power. Nuclear annihilation does not achieve that.

That being said, any authoritarian structure might be vulnerable to irrational actions of the leader, the question then is whether there are internal elements to stop it (a question that is increasingly relevant also for the US). The former Supreme Leader seemed to have reservations to fully commit to the final steps of nuclear armament, though with the current situation the rational calculus would actually favour a more aggressive program. However, the willingness to use those weapons are a different matter.

At least historically, expert analysts seem to frame Iran's actions as mostly pragmatic and rational, though couched in a religious ideology. Thus, based on historic evidence at least, it is more likely that WMDs will only be used if it somehow secures their power structure, but I cannot see a scenario for that. As a means of deterrent, however, it makes much more sense.

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think that goes towards Iran as a theocratic irrational actor doctrine. I do not think that internal violence is necessarily a good predictor regarding nuclear use. The Soviet Union is a good example, to that effect. One could make a similar argument where many more lives than since the start of the Ukraine war, for no obviously good reasons. Yet they have refrained from nuking the region.

While they might have little regard for human lives, they are interested in maintaining power. Nuclear annihilation does not achieve that.

That being said, any authoritarian structure might be vulnerable to irrational actions of the leader, the question then is whether there are internal elements to stop it (a question that is increasingly relevant also for the US). The former Supreme Leader seemed to have reservations to fully commit to the final steps of nuclear armament, though with the current situation the rational calculus would actually favour a more aggressive program. However, the willingness to use those weapons are a different matter.

At least historically, expert analysts seem to frame Iran's actions as mostly pragmatic and rational, though couched in a religious ideology. Thus, based on historic evidence at least, it is more likely that WMDs will only be used if it somehow secures their power structure, but I cannot see a scenario for that. As a means of deterrent, however, it makes much more sense.

I'm sure this is right. My assessment of Khamenei's policy was to enrich to just short of bomb grade and stop there, so that Iran could plausibly say they had no bomb ambition, but to have in reserve the capability to get there very quickly if conditions were to change such as to require it. They probably foresaw exactly the kind of pre-emptive attack by the USA and Israel that has just taken place. That would make them wise planners, not "mad mullahs".

The notion they would invite destruction of their country in a retaliatory strike by Israel, if they were to nuke Israel first is I think quite absurd. Though it is what Israel has hysterically been working on the Americans about for years. The whole notion of mad mullahs misjudges them entirely. There is no evidence the Iranian regime is irrational. Quite the contrary, as recent events have shown. Brutal at suppressing dissent, yes, of course. Irrational, no.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The Islamic countries need a mutual pact, like NATO's Article 5.

The Islamic countries have very different histories and power structures, not to mention ethnic and religious rifts. Many have been at odds for a long time. Iran, specifically has is projecting power asymmetrically by funding terror groups and militias, which destabilize a number of Arabic countries. Also, after figuring out that you can simply bribe the leader of the Western world, and that folks do not care that much for human rights after all, quite a few Islamic countries are on pretty good terms with parts of the west now. Certainly on better terms than with Iran.

Israel is a bit of a different issue, but Lebanon is just not rich enough to pay everyone off.

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The whole notion of mad mullahs misjudges them entirely. There is no evidence the Iranian regime is irrational. Quite the contrary, as recent events have shown.

A lot of very clever folks have been spending decades dissecting Iran's each and every action, in an effort to figure how rational the government is (or not). While there is a lot if spin, pretty much all serious papers seem to argue that the bottom goal that underpins all action is survival of the regime. Some derive rationality from there, others explain that this is irrational, though I have to admit I did not follow the logic one the first read and didn't want to invest the time to figure out all the steps how they arrived there. Of course things are not black and white, but I am pretty sure that folks invested all that effort specifically to avoid going up against a caricature (which, to be fair, has been a Western doctrine for a fair bit of history).

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Except that Israel has had nuclear capability ( approx. 90 warheads ) for over 30 years.
They have never threatened to use them; they don't even acknowledge having them.

Not correct. In the Iraq war Netanyahu threatened to nuke Saddam's Iraq if they put one missile on Israeli soil. I remember him saying that because he was basically admitting they had them. And yet, he still maintains nuclear ambiguity.

Edited April 20Apr 20 by StringJunky

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The Islamic countries have very different histories and power structures, not to mention ethnic and religious rifts. Many have been at odds for a long time. Iran, specifically has is projecting power asymmetrically by funding terror groups and militias, which destabilize a number of Arabic countries. Also, after figuring out that you can simply bribe the leader of the Western world, and that folks do not care that much for human rights after all, quite a few Islamic countries are on pretty good terms with parts of the west now. Certainly on better terms than with Iran.

Israel is a bit of a different issue, but Lebanon is just not rich enough to pay everyone off.

A lot of very clever folks have been spending decades dissecting Iran's each and every action, in an effort to figure how rational the government is (or not). While there is a lot if spin, pretty much all serious papers seem to argue that the bottom goal that underpins all action is survival of the regime. Some derive rationality from there, others explain that this is irrational, though I have to admit I did not follow the logic one the first read and didn't want to invest the time to figure out all the steps how they arrived there. Of course things are not black and white, but I am pretty sure that folks invested all that effort specifically to avoid going up against a caricature (which, to be fair, has been a Western doctrine for a fair bit of history).

Yes and the thinking of those clever folks informed the 2015 agreement negotiated with Iran by Obama, the UN Security Council and the EU - which Trump tore up, preferring apparently to treat Iran as a caricature. Or else just because Obama was black. Very "rational", that.

Edited April 20Apr 20 by exchemist

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Not correct. In the Iraq war Netanyahu threatened to nuke Saddam's Iraq if they put one missile on Israeli soil.

You're going to provide a citation for this ?
I could not find anything of the sort with a search, and will wait for your evidence.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

While they might have little regard for human lives, they are interested in maintaining power. Nuclear annihilation does not achieve that.

A few warheads will not achieve annihilation.
The 'regime' will survive in hardened bunkers, in both Iran and Israel.
The people at risk are the ones living close to the launch sites of the nuclear ordinances, as they will be first targets, whether airfields for planes or missile sites ( Israel has submarine launched missiles as well ).
The difference is Israel cares about its people.

Now do you see the argument ?

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

You're going to provide a citation for this ?
I could not find anything of the sort with a search, and will wait for your evidence.

I can't. It's from memory and it was in a newspaper. It was one detail in an article, a passing remark by him.

Edited April 20Apr 20 by StringJunky

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 'regime' will survive in hardened bunkers, in both Iran and Israel.

Regime survival is not the same as individual survival. Even if they personally survived, there would be no power base left. Or nation, for that matter. Also, leadership structures in Iran are seemingly a fair bit broader and deeper than, say, Russia.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Yes and the thinking of those clever folks informed the 2015 agreement negotiated with Iran by Obama, the UN Security Council and the EU - which Trump tore up, preferring apparently to treat Iran as a caricature. Or else just because Obama was black. Very "rational", that.

Indeed. Iran even followed the accord for about a year, possibly assuming that Trump might reverse course, which didn't happen, of course. The agreement under Obama would have halted development to about a year out, tearing up the agreement moved the timeline up to a few weeks. A magnificent win. And now a global energy crisis. I mean, that is a good example how even a democratic structure is vulnerable to erratic actions, which leads some credence to the notion that no one should have nukes.

22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Also, leadership structures in Iran are seemingly a fair bit broader and deeper than, say, Russia.

Iran's decision structure accommodates potential assassinations and commanders can act autonomously, if necessary. It seems they have thought of the long game.

27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Even if they personally survived, there would be no power base left. Or nation, for that matter.

I don't believe that; religious fanaticism is a powerful motivator ( even P Hegseth is trying to tap it ).

And you discount Iran's willingness to supply its proxys with weapons.
I don't believe Iran would attack Israel directly for fear of retaliation, but they could certainly supply Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis with a nuke, which they would be willing to use, and give Iran deniability for its use.

Any way you look at it, Iran having nuclear capability, as Stringy previously floated, is a very bad idea.

Just now, StringJunky said:

Iran's decision structure accommodates potential assassinations and commanders can act autonomously, if necessary. It seems they have thought of the long game.

It is likely a system borne from the revolution. As you recall, the overthrow of the Shah was a deeply popular movement, which incorporated a lot of secular forces. Hence, there were a lot of promises for a path to democracy before, but then a furious power struggle after the the successful overthrow.

There are different viewpoints how that happened but in the aftermath, multiple revolutionary bodies were formed, controlling different aspects of society. I.e. one way to interpret is that because the revolutionary forces were ideologically diverse, it wasn't possible to consolidate into a unifying controlling body. Rather it took time, the formation of specific groups to counter those forces and then to squash opposition over perhaps a decade or so. These structures have largely survived and while not really autonomous as such, they present a sort of slightly decentralized organizational power that can function when the head of state is killed.

1 minute ago, MigL said:

And you discount Iran's willingness to supply its proxys with weapons.
I don't believe Iran would attack Israel directly for fear of retaliation, but they could certainly supply Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis with a nuke, which they would be willing to use, and give Iran deniability for its use.

While this is likely the most likely scenario of deployment, I doubt that they are under the illusion that folks wouldn't immediately blame the Iranian government. They may officially tap dance around that a bit, but they know that everyone knows that those are their proxies. And in fact they have admitted to that a few times, including demanding the inclusion of Lebanon (i.e., Hezbollah) in the last round of ceasefire agreements.

IOW, I don't think anyone in the Iranian government thinks that they can risk deploying nuclear weapons via proxies. Also, I suspect forensics would easily connect it to their enrichment program. So no, unless their government is replaced by folks that are substantially different to what they had before, I doubt that this is a realistic scenario either.

But then again, I have gotten quite a bit of appreciation regarding how stupid things can get, so I won't make any bets on the future.

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think Iran needs a nuclear capability, or for one of its nuclear-armed allies to say "Nuke Iran or threaten it with them, we'll do the same to you". That would be simplest, I think. The Islamic countries need a mutual pact, like NATO's Article 5. I think all this geopolitical bullying and resource stealing by the west is down to the glaring asymmetry in WMD's. There's no mutually assured destruction capability in the Islamic Middle East. There needs to be some degree of a nuclear capability there to restore some level of mutual military respect.

The ally thing could work, though it's hard to imagine a nuke capability from any of them that would really counter the US with a MAD. Maybe Russia, though I can't see the present Putin admin wanting to commit to a binding defense pact like that. This is the sort of fraught nuclear geopolitics I haven't given enough thought or research.

(ETA: now seeing a whole page of posts around this matter, which will now read; some days I'm in the wrong time zone...)

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes and the thinking of those clever folks informed the 2015 agreement negotiated with Iran by Obama, the UN Security Council and the EU - which Trump tore up, preferring apparently to treat Iran as a caricature. Or else just because Obama was black. Very "rational", that.

Not sure how much press the story got in Europe or UK, but one theory for Turnip's animus is that, rather than being racially based, it's owing to Obama roasting Turnip at the 2011 WH Correspondents Dinner. Many who know the Turnip say he was deeply stung, found none of it funny, and was pretty much determined to exact revenge from that point on. Undoing all things Obama became the focus of that spite. One can fault Obama only to the extent that he may not have realized quite the depths of Turnip's sociopathy and humorless vindictiveness (and ability to grift his way to the WH). But really, few people outside of New York social circles and real estate biz did.

This is a bit on the side, but I think the older folks (myself included) might need to revise some of our assumptions on the power structure of the countries in the Middle East. Some (e.g. Lebanon) might still be in similar geopolitically place as they were before, but others might be in a very different position and alignment then they were decades ago.

Not that I claim to understand any of that. Just looking at the parties involved in the Yemeni war make my head spin. I think the time of clear blocks of powers might be over, especially when it comes to proxy wars.

On 4/18/2026 at 4:12 PM, CharonY said:

Also, alcoholism

The Atlantic

The FBI Director Is MIA

Kash Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking and unexplained absences.

Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Atlantic.....

On 4/19/2026 at 1:48 PM, exchemist said:

That's nonsense. There is no justification for this attack. Iran posed no immediate threat of any magnitude to the USA. No credible level of threat has even been asserted, much less corroborated. Furthermore no clear war aims have been articulated.

How do you know there is no credible threat? The media? Then it is psychological warfare.

Trump’s reputation makes you think he is just bombing Iran to make America great again.

I think it is strategic. Why let Iran build weapons till they are a significant threat? And what if you could reach a peaceful Iran? American Iranians were backing Trump.

I know how the war looks and I don’t have access to military intelligence, but I don’t think Trump would start a war that would hurt the economy and kill thousands for no reason.

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

The ally thing could work, though it's hard to imagine a nuke capability from any of them that would really counter the US with a MAD. Maybe Russia, though I can't see the present Putin admin wanting to commit to a binding defense pact like that. This is the sort of fraught nuclear geopolitics I haven't given enough thought or research.

(ETA: now seeing a whole page of posts around this matter, which will now read; some days I'm in the wrong time zone...)

Not sure how much press the story got in Europe or UK, but one theory for Turnip's animus is that, rather than being racially based, it's owing to Obama roasting Turnip at the 2011 WH Correspondents Dinner. Many who know the Turnip say he was deeply stung, found none of it funny, and was pretty much determined to exact revenge from that point on. Undoing all things Obama became the focus of that spite. One can fault Obama only to the extent that he may not have realized quite the depths of Turnip's sociopathy and humorless vindictiveness (and ability to grift his way to the WH). But really, few people outside of New York social circles and real estate biz did.

That's interesting, because I've always felt one of Obama's biggest errors was to refer contemptuously to Putin's Russia as a "regional power". I remember wincing when he did that (probably because I'm in Europe rather than the USA). I suspect that remark was the original catalyst for Putin's revanchist drive, the fruits of which culminated in invading Ukraine. Unnecessarily pissing off psychopaths turns out to cause disproportionate trouble later on.

6 hours ago, Trurl said:

How do you know there is no credible threat? The media? Then it is psychological warfare.

Trump’s reputation makes you think he is just bombing Iran to make America great again.

I think it is strategic. Why let Iran build weapons till they are a significant threat? And what if you could reach a peaceful Iran? American Iranians were backing Trump.

I know how the war looks and I don’t have access to military intelligence, but I don’t think Trump would start a war that would hurt the economy and kill thousands for no reason.

No, that is just "bothsidesism" or false balance, giving undeserved respectability to an indefensible position. The USA offered no coherent rationale, and no evidence of any threat, to justify the attack. All we got a set of conflicting, changing and vague stories from the adminstration, ranging from regime change (justified how?) to securing nuclear material (how?), to the threat of probable retaliation against the US (how?) due to an attack Israel was in any case planning (why not instead dissuade Israel from doing that?).

The evidence Trump is behaving irrationally comes from his own mouth. All you have to do is listen and you immediately see the inconsistencies from one day to the next, the vagueness, the capriciousness - and in fact the sadism, the most repulsive recent example of which was the relish with which he talked of "bombing our little hearts out".

Trump would absolutely start a war for no reason if he thought he could have an excuse to hurt a lot of people. It would make him feel powerful. That's what turns him on. Trump has a rapist's mentality. And with Hegseth at the Pentagon, he has a kindred spirit.

10 hours ago, Trurl said:

I know how the war looks and I don’t have access to military intelligence, but I don’t think Trump would start a war that would hurt the economy and kill thousands for no reason.

The Epstein files ...

What I find amusing about this ( as amusing as war can possibly be ) is that D Trump is now practically begging the Iranians to sign on to an 'agreement' like the one he tore up ( because of his disdain for B Obama ) during his first term, and, after having attacked them.

Not that I'm fond of the Iranian government ( as you can see from previous posts ), but I love that D Trump and his Administration look like total idiots to the rest of the world, as they furiously try to spin this as a 'win'.

I can't wait for November ...

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

Really, the best reason for Iran to give up nuke aspirations is Israel's belligerence and hyperreactive posture. The RW coalition throws fits of rage at the sight of its own shadow. Iran showing any sign of building a nuke wouid give them leverage to do God knows what.

Which would be negated by them actually having one or at least a creditable threat of one, instead they've given them a far more potent weapon, with their God knows what threat, like a curse from the grave.

The economy is to big to fail...

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

The evidence Trump is behaving irrationally comes from his own mouth. All you have to do is listen and you immediately see the inconsistencies from one day to the next, the vagueness, the capriciousness - and in fact the sadism, the most repulsive recent example of which was the relish with which he talked of "bombing our little hearts out".

Trump would absolutely start a war for no reason if he thought he could have an excuse to hurt a lot of people. It would make him feel powerful. That's what turns him on. Trump has a rapist's mentality. And with Hegseth at the Pentagon, he has a kindred spirit.

Apparently, Trump went so emotional and off his rocker during the rescue mission to get those f15 pilots back, he was ejected from the situation room as it happened. He was fed bits and bobs in chunks later on in his office. He was fretting over what it would do to his image if they were captured. It seems he feared what happened to Carter was going to happen to him.

15 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Patel has filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the Atlantic.....

I am looking forward to discovery.

14 hours ago, Trurl said:

I know how the war looks and I don’t have access to military intelligence, but I don’t think Trump would start a war that would hurt the economy and kill thousands for no reason.

This is the point where you should ask yourself: why do you know that? An it really boils down to two things. In this part here:

14 hours ago, Trurl said:

How do you know there is no credible threat? The media? Then it is psychological warfare.

You basically say that media are untrustworthy. So you eliminate those as sources of information and supplant it with trust in Trump. I.e. you exchange trust in an information ecosystem (i.e. media) with trust into a person who demonstrably throughout his career has lied to further his personal goals. This is certainly a choice. A choice that abolishes accountability to those in power, a choice that selectively ignores information, a choice that weakens democratic systems (which rely on accountability). It is certainly not a choice that I would make.

But perhaps I am just not understanding things properly and perhaps we can explore this issue a bit more systematically. Generally speaking there are at least three key elements of trust. The first is goodwill or fairness. This is is rooted in aspects of transparency that shows that the party is acting with benevolence and following procedural justice. In short, it should signal that processes are open and oriented to the benefit of people, rather than, for example, personal benefit. Media falls flat in some aspects, as they are a business. On the other hand, legacy media still has some transparency in editorial decisions, where they at least have to signal journalistic integrity. Some have failed in the aspect, to a large part due to failures of their owners (say, Bezos) so there are certainly deductions to be made. But there are also other information sources, such as academic ones. Here, transparency is mostly gained through processes like peer-review, academic exchange and providing specific sources for each and any claim.

How does Trump's presidency stack up against that? Has it shown goodwill to the people over personal interest? Has it shown transparency and clarity in their actions?

Second, you need competence and integrity. This part demonstrates that one has the competence to deliver what is being promised. This includes technical ability as well as adherence to prior state values. The values for journalistic integrity are well-known and while there is some faltering, senior journalists at least try to maintain their reputation, as that secures their livelihood. Same for academics, as lack of integrity is usually the end of the career (unless they decide to go on right-wing circuits).

So how does the presidency stack up to that. Especially in the face of documented lies and misdirections (even in court)?

And third, there is the aspect of accountability and governance. To build trust you have to demonstrate that there is an accountability structure that will keep you in check so that folks can trust in your actions.

How does that pan out, especially when Trump repeatedly stated that he won't take accountability for any failures, only for successes?

I think addressing these questions would provide some more insights into the motivation of trusting the government.

15 hours ago, Trurl said:

American Iranians were backing Trump.

For that specific element I wonder if you have sources. From what I read, there was an initial positive response when folks thought that there was a plan for sustained regime change, but since then I have only seen one poll where Iranian Americans were identified showing broad opposition, mostly related to civilian casualties and uncertainty of goals (i.e. cutting through all three elements of the above elements). There was about a third that somewhat or strongly supported it, which is about the same as the group that strongly opposed it. I suspect a lot depends on whether they still have friends and relatives in the region.

On 4/20/2026 at 12:21 PM, StringJunky said:

I think Iran needs a nuclear capability, or for one of its nuclear-armed allies to say "Nuke Iran or threaten it with them, we'll do the same to you". That would be simplest, I think. The Islamic countries need a mutual pact, like NATO's Article 5. I think all this geopolitical bullying and resource stealing by the west is down to the glaring asymmetry in WMD's. There's no mutually assured destruction capability in the Islamic Middle East. There needs to be some degree of a nuclear capability there to restore some level of mutual military respect.

I think the current economic situation shows that Iran, at least, has a lot of leverage without having nukes.

15 hours ago, Trurl said:

How do you know there is no credible threat? The media? Then it is psychological warfare.

Trump’s reputation makes you think he is just bombing Iran to make America great again.

I think it is strategic. Why let Iran build weapons till they are a significant threat? And what if you could reach a peaceful Iran? American Iranians were backing Trump.

I know how the war looks and I don’t have access to military intelligence, but I don’t think Trump would start a war that would hurt the economy and kill thousands for no reason.

How about what Trump claimed? No need to blame a media filter. The White House still has that page up.

“Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/

How could there be a threat?

20 hours ago, Trurl said:

I think it is strategic.

Impossible. Any strategy that doesn't include Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz is an automatic failure, this is Middle East 101. Even I knew they could do this. Yet this administration assumed closure would hurt Iran more than help it, so they went in unprepared for what most of the State Dept and the military were telling them was an inevitability, that if Iran was pushed hard the Strait would close. If there's any strategy to these moves, it's in how to fleece the US for as much money as possible. They're playing the stock market with insider tips. And these hard-partying cabinet members have wracked up quite the total in non-operational expenses. I can't imagine $93B being spent on luxury food and furniture by the military, and if you can, I'd love to hear your justification.

Strategic, my ass.

Don't forget the General who had a Steinway Grand purchased for his house. Our national security depends on generals whose brains don't turn to MaltoMeal from exposure to mediocre keyboards or Ikea furniture. One dimly remembers the use it or lose it buying spree that DoD goes on every September was supposed to be the kind of waste that Turnip and the Musk Ox were going to trim. All budget money leftovers at FY end were going to be shoveled back into the Treasury - that, combined with tariffs and gifts from Qatar and other caring friends, plus the promised policy of stringent isolationism and no free rides for those creepy parasitic starving children in Africa would buy down the national debt in a few years!

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

combined with tariffs

He's now paying back, to American companies ( but not to the consumers/taxpayers whose cost of living those compabies increased ) the illegal profits made by his tariffs.
I thought the tariffs were paid by other countries, and were not a tax on the American idiots who voted for him.

I can't wait for November ...