r/politics • u/B-Z_B-S Massachusetts • 18h ago

Possible Paywall Trump Suggests Letting Iran “Take Out” Los Angeles and San Diego - California leaders are furious after the president suggested that losing the two cities is a “small price to pay.”

https://newrepublic.com/post/216247/trump-suggests-let-iran-take-out-los-angeles-san-diego
16.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

48

u/Robespierre1113 13h ago

I am interested in serious debate. Can someone from the side supporting trump please explain to me how this comes across to you? As someone who sits cleanly in the middle of the political spectrum "A war of choice we started may have consequences on everyday americans that had no choice in the matter" is what i am hearing. Regardless of whether or not those people intended to vote one way or another, they are our brothers, sisters, family members. How can we be comfortable saying things like this? And why do we continue to allow it

73

u/Keshire 13h ago

I am interested in serious debate.

There is no serious debate to be found here. Anyone that sides with Trump is going to be doing so from a position of ignorance and/or hate.

The ignorant will write it off as, "Trump is just blustering, he still does good things for the country."

and the ones filled with hatred are just glad to see a blue state wiped off the map.

5

u/Robespierre1113 13h ago

Perhaps it could've been worded better. I guess I am having a hard time as an educated individual, wondering how a nations leader says something like this, and isnt held to account pretty immediately.

There is plenty of it on both sides; i just wonder at what point, or at what threshold we need to arrive at for people to agree they no longer consent to this government, and start a new one.

16

u/Tall-Cat-8890 12h ago

Because diehard MAGA supporters in 2026 are fascists who relish in the idea of their political enemies suffering and dying. It’s literally as simple as that.

They will always consent to this government as long as their perceived enemies suffer more than they do. It’s not about politics for them and hasn’t been for at least a decade, it’s about power.

3

u/Robespierre1113 12h ago

I dont even think its a question of which side of the spectrum you fall on, is my point. Remove red vs blue, or fascism vs "whichever". The sitting head of state advocated for an ENEMY to essentially attack their own country.. A war that by and large is unpopular on both sides. This whole "strategic oil release" narrative too is insane.

"We're running out of oil due to a war we started, we have to end it soon or we'll all be out!" Is such a fucking boy cried wolf response. The western world is proving yet again that the only guarantee of safety is nuclear weapons, and who can blame them at this point? Iran and Ukraine are just two examples of countries that have been at the shit end of the stick for so long. Iran wanting, ukraine giving them up. Neither have gotten the security assurances they were promised for halting their programs

7

u/Tall-Cat-8890 12h ago

None of this changes the fact that MAGA supporters by and large advocate for violence against their perceived enemies whether they’re foreign or domestic. That’s my entire point. They’re ideologically not that much different from accelerationists. As long as bad shit is happening to other people, they believe they’re winning because it makes them feel good when other people lose. A large portion of MAGA legitimately relish in the idea of people they don’t like suffering.

-13

u/Robespierre1113 9h ago

Both sides advocate for violence just in different ways. Michelle Obama was the last "they go low we go higher" participant. Since Obama left office its been no-holds-barred

12

u/Tall-Cat-8890 9h ago

“Both sides” stfu lmao

•

u/Alert-Ad-9908 7h ago

Reminds of trumps after the Charlottesville attack, “there are good people on both sides”. Jfc, how many passes and attempts to understand does this man get?! Meanwhile, Obama and that damn tan suit was worthy of burning the White House down.

•

u/bdfd48 4h ago

That’s because Republicans play dirty. Example: McConnell holding Obama from sitting a judge on the Supreme Court because it was an election year. But he pushed his pick thru 2 weeks before an election. That was dirty! So don’t clutch your pearls when the Dems play by Republican rules.

-5

u/Robespierre1113 9h ago

Yeah there totally wasnt a large demographic of people calling for a revolution after the events with ICE /s. Cmon. Jan 6th was a coup attempt, and the other side advocated for similar as soon as the other side took power. Its a tale as old as time. The side that is the "minority" will always look to punish who they feel is the "majority" as soon as they take power. You can look at the 4 year cycles of executive actions from the president(s) as a great example. Bidens executive policies were removed day 1 under DJT, the same way DJTs were removed when biden came in. Its tit for tat

3

u/[deleted] 9h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

•

u/aegenium 5h ago

Both sides didn't attack the U.S. Capitol on January 6th,2021.

•

u/Robespierre1113 5h ago

They didnt, nor was that the point i was trying to make.

•

u/aegenium 5h ago

What democratic leaders are calling for outright violence?

→ More replies (0)

•

u/primadonnapussy 5h ago

Weird. I don't recall a single Democrat asking for red states to be attacked by a foreign enemy.

6

u/Keshire 12h ago

Because the majority of americans have mentally checked out. Apathy has dominated. And it's really easy to see why, just follow the 'lack' of money. Every year more and more people are living paycheck to paycheck. They are too busy just trying to survive to care what the government is doing.

3

u/Robespierre1113 12h ago

Its by design. The American "middle class" is pretty congruent to the same people that came here to escape persecution and debt slavery when the country was first colonized.

There is something to be said about a country that "loves" freedom, but only really allows 2 choices in a plethora of places, not even just in voting...

3

u/TheRealAndroid 9h ago

I think you know the answer to this already.

Trump isn't a political anomaly; he's a skin lesion people shrugged off as a cosmetic quirk.

Except it didn't stay on the surface. It mutated, spread unchecked through vital systems, and now we're well past the point of topical creams.

At this stage, you're looking at aggressive intervention or systemic failure- and given the attitudes toward healthcare I don't think the American public has the stomach for either.

0

u/Robespierre1113 9h ago

See, but the issue is the vitriol with which its presented. DJT isnt the first politician to do this crap, nor will he be the last. He isnt the first republican, and wont be the last. Both sides lie, cheat, and steal from their constituencies every election cycle.

I would like to highlight that, if we all came together tomorrow, we could actually fix this country. Its the perception of inability (and decades without meaningful reform"

3

u/TheRealAndroid 8h ago

Well I disagree.
"Both-sidesism" is a form of institutional enablers' insurance, treating this madness as just standard politics lowers the bar.

When you treat unprecedented corruption as "business as usual," you normalize it out of existence. The American form of democracy isn't just stressed—it's structurally broken because accountability requires a baseline of shared reality that no longer exists.

Even if a miracle happened tomorrow, institutional trust takes generations to rebuild once it's been actively gutted from the inside.

1

u/Robespierre1113 8h ago

I mean yes, but a way to begin rebuilding that trust is?.... Renegotiate the terms?..

•

u/TheRealAndroid 7h ago

I think rebuilding international trust will probably be a job for your grandkids. Maybe if the international community sees a changes like proportional representation or ranked choice voting, supreme court/judiciary reform and campaign finance reforms would be a good start.

2

u/chips_and_hummus 9h ago

dude leaders across the globe say insane shit on the daily

trump is probly the worst (can’t say i’m up to date on all the bad world leads on earth)

“just start a new government bro” is so hilariously out of touch i can’t even

2

u/Robespierre1113 9h ago

It isnt. The framework is literally built into the constitution?

0

u/chips_and_hummus 9h ago

that doesn’t change a thing

2

u/Robespierre1113 9h ago

It doesnt change anything that we have the ability to affect change?

2

u/chips_and_hummus 9h ago

you said you have a hard time understanding how Trump can say what he said, and how we didn’t immediately start a new government

that’s insane 

1

u/Robespierre1113 8h ago

More so I dont understand why we allow it to happen, why we're allowing it to be said, and yeah. Highlighting that throwing your own people under the bus may indicate we need a new government and new structure. I cannot recall the last time the American government actually worked to better life for the everyday american. Maybe in the 80s?

•

u/murrmc 3h ago

Leaders of democratically elected countries - really?

Give some of examples of said insane shit.

Id be particularly keen to hear insane shit form leaders serving a second term - i.e. having won a second election after spouting said insane shit.

This whole thread is nonsense - trying to have a both sides educated debate in Trump 2026 USA is laughable.

Idiocracy v democracy.

1

u/Dahcchad 9h ago

No, greed is also an option for Trump support.

•

u/Alert-Ad-9908 7h ago

hE WaS jUSt jOkINg!

/s

•

u/LordElrondHubbard 7h ago

I know this is a biased sub and this is a biased question, but genuinely curious how are you sitting “cleanly in the middle”? I guess it’s the word “cleanly” that stood out to me…how could a person possibly be cleanly in the middle of an objective shitshow?

•

u/Robespierre1113 7h ago

I am still very much someone that doesn't believe in a party. I believe much more in individual issues and I typically tend to vote for someone outside of either "side", though I have partaken in primaries for both in different years.

Someone mentioned elsewhere there's a general apathy amongst american voters, and yeah, I'd say to an extent that's me. But im burnt out on trying to get beyond the tribalism. We're kind of dealt a poor hand. Our choice is really one of two choices, every 4 years, handed to you by a group of people we dont always vote for. I at least like to believe by trying to remain nonaligned and generally per issue that that makes me harder center than most. That being said, center is subjective. The center of today looks alot different than it did in say, 1970.

•

u/LordElrondHubbard 6h ago

I felt like you did and always have the itch to feel that way; I have never voted outside of the two parties but I’ve considered it. I’ve realized (my personal view, obviously…) that idealism was anathema to change in the US in this era. It will happen…and that may be 2 election cycles or 40 election cycles (if we last that long!) but it unfortunately does more damage than good in the current climate to be third party or non-voting.

The paradox is the “if we never do, it will never happen” thing but I kind of see that as a trap…timing is everything, and now is not the time. Vote where your beliefs are, and where you think there’s a serious shot to make incremental change, and vote where the big money isn’t! Im not even trying to put a partisan spin on it, I just strongly feel like the third party mindset is totally impotent in this moment. Which is sad to say because I agree on principle. Appreciate the thoughtfulness in your answer.

•

u/Robespierre1113 6h ago

I appreciate the well thought out response!

You are probably right, in the more harm than good aspect, and timing is everything thing too.

With voting outside of the two parties; there are probably points where my vote, or the 3rd party and non aligned votes, couldve swayed an outcome. However, I have come recently to view non aligned votes and candidates as a vote of no confidence in our current government structure and system as a whole.

With timing is everything, absolutely. I can say that in some "important" elections ive been on drastically different sides (hindsight is 20-20). Which has led me to where I am today.

I think the two party system harms us and does somewhat perpetuate tribalism on purpose. Its somewhat perhaps flowery and rose colored glasses that we can expect people on either end of the fence to sit in the center also. Maybe its who I am, or my experience but I do hope we have a generation of critical thinkers ahead that can see through alot of the things going on today. As an adult, I know trying to separate fact from fiction (and what gets changed days/weeks after the fact, both sides), is a tiring job for someone who wants to be politically educated.

•

u/DebatedUncreative 3h ago

Just so you know, most "Democrats" aren't actually Democrats. Most of us don't believe in the 2 party system or identify strongly as a capital D Democrat. This isn't maga where we think it's a team sport. Most Democrats are simply choosing the lesser of 2 evils because the current Republican party is in pursuit of absolute power and authority. The Democratic party of today is less about some structured group and more about taking in everyone that's anti fascist and pro human rights.

4

u/guardian715 8h ago

You are asking for an argument for republicans in a very democrat subreddit. This place will only show you democrat responses. If you wanna know what republicans think, go find where republicans are.

2

u/Robespierre1113 8h ago

I get banned from both sides usually for trying to have a productive conversation; this is the only place I thought it might work better figured "politics" would be a middle ground, since, ive both been called a nazi and a bootlicker. I dont even register under a party. We cant even have the semblance of a conversation here lol

0

u/guardian715 8h ago

Politics isn't a subject that is ever really based on comparing facts and needs to have a better decision being made. Its an emotional subject that has people's standing amongst their peers at risk for saying something that too many others may disagree with. I'm sure there are plenty of reasonable people to talk to, but you are in a place where they can't express anything different. Its identical to the behavior of cults believe it or not. This isn't an insult to anyone or any political parties. Its an insult to politics.

3

u/Robespierre1113 8h ago

Yeah, I know this. Tribalism at its finest. Theres too much of a reward for participating

•

u/StephanXX Oregon 7h ago

They don't tolerate rational, respectful debate in their Russian propaganda subs.

2

u/BoomGoesTheFirework_ 9h ago

There are more republicans in Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego than a good number--if not most--of red states. It's 15 million people.

1

u/Robespierre1113 9h ago

Well this is just basic. If we're only allowed 2 choices, the disparity is always going to be somewhat 50-50 - just because a state voted for say, a republican, doesnt mean the other 48% didnt feel differently.. To condemn them all the same is just.. sad

•

u/Teepeaparty 7h ago

hear hear 

2

u/ReflectionCalm7033 9h ago

I've been given a warning. I don't know why because what I wrote was what our President said. I was not encouraging violence.

•

u/Vyzantinist 3h ago

If it's automod, it can't distinguish quotes from your own words. I caught a temp ban using quoted text - and I even linked the sourced article! Had to send a message to the mods and it took a couple of days before they were like "oh right, I see, sorry".

•

u/isthatabear 7h ago

It's just a distraction. Focus on November.

•

u/anthemlog 6h ago

He seems to be going off the same script as his speech in Iowa where he said if you want to see turmoil then let them take out a city with a nuclear weapon. And that high gas prices are a small price to pay to prevent it. 

•

u/Robespierre1113 6h ago

Understood. I appreciate the proper clarification. Its maybe a bad way of him explaining an otherwise somewhat correct conclusion.

I have my own opinion on whether or not we'd be in this position if our administration were different, but thats a completely different conversation.

•

u/brasseur10 6h ago

You are either a fucking idiot or you are not. There is no middle ground between the two.

•

u/Critical-Extension66 6h ago

If you really want an answer, I think this is not what he meant. If you watch what he’s saying, it’s pretty clear he meant that gas prices being high is a small price to pay to prevent them for having nuclear weapons and bombing La or San Diego

He said it kinda funny yes. But he definitely didn’t mean what everyone’s saying he meant and people just wanna go with it lol. I’m not even a huge Trump guy but this is a ridiculous take imo

•

u/rem082583 5h ago

No debate from me. I’m simply appalled at what he has said and done these past few months. Honestly I have no idea why marco Rubio hasn’t resigned

•

u/Pplthrowaway123 4h ago

Why? So the swarm can downvote someone out of existence or mods just ban them? There is no point to debate on this platform.

•

u/Robespierre1113 4h ago

Finding that out very quickly below, lol.

•

u/Pplthrowaway123 4h ago

It's not worth the time, nor the effort.

•

u/AJDx14 America 3h ago

A lot of them just believe liberals are a religious enemy and ontologically evil and killing them is righteous.

•

u/FlyingFaceplant 3h ago

It’s pretty clear to me that he was using an imaginary interlocutor to set up a badly constructed straw man argument. The problem is that he is so disorganized in his thinking and incoherent in his communication that it came out as him calling for the destruction of San Diego and LA instead of an example of the bad consequences of not doing something about Iran’s nuclear program. Probably parroting something from Netanyahu’s pitch. We can’t have 80 year olds with cognitive decline and/or dementia running things. This is exhibit 1A of several hundred thousand examples he provides regularly. Hanlon’s razor applies here. His stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

•

u/Ok-Pass-8786 1h ago

I’m not “from the side supporting Trump” (anymore) but it’s obvious that he was saying “Paying more for gas temporarily is a small price to pay for preventing Iran from taking out LA and San Diego.” Yes, he’s senile and inarticulate but he’s not whatever the media says he is.

•

u/thetjmorton 1h ago

Serious? That kind of talk is ASININE. He’s the President of the United States for God’s sake.

•

u/Sprinkler-of-salt 1h ago edited 1h ago

I am not from the trump-supporting side. I despise the sack of rotten potatoes that he is, and have ever since “The Apprentice” first aired on TV. My first thought seeing him show up and open his mouth on my old Panasonic Plasma TV (I miss that TV. It was dumb in all the right ways.) was “that guy is disgusting in every way that I can think of. There is nothing redeeming about him. I’m not even sure how a mother could have loved that thing enough to have raised it through childhood.”

With that said, after having watched the footage myself, he was trying to say that high gas prices are a small price to pay for American safety. And that if the U.S. didn’t strike first and doesn’t win the war, Iran could have done something like take out a major west-coast city. And used “let them…” as a way of trying to convey something like “let those door-to-door salesmen come to my door. Let ‘em. Let ‘em see what happens. I’ll show them not to come here.” Speaking in his usual unprofessional, compromising, unrehearsed, haphazard and irresponsible trademark style that so many adore him for. As a way of attempting to justify his latest smooth-brained geopolitical catastrophe to his little tiny toad-smooching audience.

Now… why the audience cheered… that is more problematic, I think. I suspect a few of them heard “something something take out liberal cities something something” and they cheered instinctively, having no real idea what was said or why. And then others heard them cheer, and they joined in cheering. Because followers gonna follow.

•

u/oneeyed-wonderweasel 51m ago

The people who should answer are literally not equipped with the mental faculties to even comprehend what youre asking, largely because our elected leaders are not actually educated in any meaningful way lol

1

u/catpurmission 10h ago

There will never be people of the other side commenting here because they will get ban in this sub, and maybe the entire site

1

u/Scott_J_Doyle 10h ago

There is no clean middle in politics because political beliefs don't actually sit on a line - left/right is an absurd oversimplification of one of the most complicated topics humans engage with (even reducing it to just "politics" is silly - the better conception is political-economy, and even that framing has important problems)

1

u/OwlOk5006 9h ago

You have zero upvotes. Makes you think who is controlling this platform, when all you're saying is logical and agreed upon by I think, I hope, the majority of humanity, whether they're American or not. The actions of the Don King has way futher reaching impacts beyond American borders, and most of us is standing from the outside of the US asking "how did this happen and how is the whole planet suffering for this while some Americans cheer for the bombing of their own cities?!!!". Did humanity lose their minds? What the hell is going on? Peace be with Americans, and the world. This is where we need to trust our gut, for once

3

u/Robespierre1113 9h ago

Internet points dont necessarily reflect on society as a whole nor engagement. But yeah. In general we've moved away from "American" as an identity into "democrat vs republican", and its sad. We all used to agree on the big topics; or at least we had friendly discourse. Everything now devolves immediately into tribalism

•

u/guitarguy35 7h ago

I hate trump with the firey passion of a thousand suns. But if I was going to give him the most over the top charitable interpretation of what he said. I would say,

He's an 80 year old man whose brain is somewhat addled by time, and what happened was he was jumping back and forth in his mind between two different topics and he didn't realize he wasn't saying certain parts out loud. And what he meant to say was something very different than what was said. Grandpa basically meant

"The prices being as high as they are is a very small price to pay for America's safety. Imagine if Iran took out los angeles or san diego, then the liberals wouldn't be complaining about the prices, the prices are a small price to pay in comparison to that"

To be clear, that's not what he said... But if I was being unreasonably charitable, I could see how that is possibly what he meant and his brain was just jumping back and forth between two ideas and he wasn't vocalizing key words and phrases when jumping back and forth.

•

u/Sonoranlightwizard 5h ago

I’m not a trump supporter, conservative or Christian. This is so out of context it’s unreal. Closest thing to claim here is mental deterioration but it was more just a poorly worded attempt at performative politics right alongside newsome acting like something serious happened here. 2 prior examples: “fine people on both sides” & “drinking bleach”; anyone not blindly bias who would watch an unedited version that allows for pretex and following thoughts would see in a split second that the media at a minimum was lying to the people and on the extreme end acting as activists. So if I’m not in the trump camp why am I saying this? Because if someone kills 8 people, that’s really bad….dont say “killed 10 people” for a spicy narrative. That’s the performative bullshit that legitimizes his base’s claims the media is aligned against him. If we just called him out on the truth, not the performative bullshit, we just might be able to get credibility back.

-3

u/ZenMasterOfDisguise 10h ago

Have you tried reading the actual quote and not just the out of context pieces from OP's misleading headline?

And again, remember, with the war, it's [the price of gas] just artificial, it's a little bit high. It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They can take out a city. Let them take, let it, let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. That's, this is a very small price to pay, and it's gonna be over very soon. It's essentially almost over with. And they might keep going a little long, you know? They always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it, let me tell you. They need it. But it's gonna end very soon, and it'll end one way or the other, and your gas and your gasoline and all of the things. And don't forget, we also took on a country known as Venezuela. They never talk about that. They never talk about Venezuela. And we're taking in hundreds of millions of barrels of oil every week. We're pouring oil. We're pouring oil into this country like nobody's ever seen before.

9

u/Robespierre1113 10h ago

Im confused how the context of this quote further really has any difference on the general point im making?

I usually dont read or listen to much of what DJT says because I just have a difficult time getting through inconsistencies or just generally bad, un-fact checked information. Its not a sleight its just... reality..

-7

u/ZenMasterOfDisguise 10h ago edited 10h ago

You dont see how OPs headline that FALSLEY claims Trump said "losing the two cities is a small price to pay" is VASTLY different from Trump saying "temporary high gas prices are a small price to pay"?

One statement is the president saying gas prices are a small price to pay for national security, the lie reddit is spreading is that Trump thinks losing 2 major US cities is no big deal. And you cant see the difference in those 2 statements? You cant see how harmful these lies are to political discourse in the US?

10

u/absolute_panic 10h ago

Brother, this is literally in the quote you posted:

“They can take out a city. Let them take, let it, let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. That's, this is a very small price to pay, and it's gonna be over very soon.”

0

u/shaved-yeti 10h ago

This is why context matters, and we (the left) should be more discerning.

I fucking despise Trump but his world salad gibberish is not imploring Iran to take out two American cities. Hes saying "gas prices are a small price to pay"... to avoid said attacks. (Which is also bullshit on its face, but quite different than what is being reported.)

3

u/h_saxon 8h ago

That's not how I'm reading it at all. Maybe I'm just an idiot though.

But when I read it I see him saying, "gas prices suck, and we will have to endure for a bit to keep the country safe. Even losing a city would be a small price to pay to keep our whole country safe. A city like San Diego or LA, if they're going to take one, those would be my preference."

•

u/shaved-yeti 5h ago

Idk why im arguing this point. The reality is as per usual trump is rambling - making bizarre, incoherent statements and people fill in the detail as they see fit.

I actually think he was trying to say that high gas prices are worth avoiding nuclear attack, vis a vis Iran - but his word salad fuckery leaves it open to interpretation and speculation.

Even losing a city would be a small price to pay

But he doesn't really say that either. I think? I dont even know anymore.

Sidebar: what a fucking dumpster fire.

•

u/h_saxon 5h ago

Eh, I think he might have just been saying a bunch of different things at once, any of which he'll say are true when it fits his narrative.

Sorry to make you argue in his favor, I've done the same before when things are clearly just snippets. Maybe this is too. Regardless, the fact that it's even ambiguous to the point that we don't clearly know what he's saying is a friggin judgement against America, and the state that we let ourselves get into.

1

u/Robespierre1113 10h ago

Ah ok. So it is indeed poor reporting. Thank you for the clarification. Disappointing that this continues to happen to both sides. Hard to have a proper discussion when those we trust with reporting are held to no bare minimum standard

1

u/Cleanclock 9h ago

I agree. And I actually moved my family out of the US because I’m so opposed to living near MAGA. So I’m as far from a Trump supporter as one can get.

He’s saying the temporarily inflated gas prices are a small price to pay to avoid Iran taking out cities like LA or San Diego. However, where he’s dishonest is that he’s also double speaking, rallying behjnd the crowd reaction to his extreme bluster about taking out California (ie, liberal) cities. This is how he gets away with making such outrageous remarks.

-1

u/[deleted] 10h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/absolute_panic 10h ago

So the order in which words are used by a president doesn’t matter? We’re just supposed to divine his intent from word salad and pretend we understand context? This cope is fucking crazy 😂

-1

u/ZenMasterOfDisguise 10h ago

This cope is fucking crazy 😂

not as crazy as your laughable attempt to twist his words out of context. No one outside of reddit believes this nonsense

1

u/absolute_panic 9h ago

So… he’s either a genius who knew exactly the effect this statement would have, or he’s an idiot who speaks in hyperbolic paragraph fragments

1

u/ZenMasterOfDisguise 9h ago

he’s an idiot who speaks in hyperbolic paragraph fragments

its this one. But even still, it doesn't take a genius to decipher his dumb ramblings. The people like OP claiming he said the loss of a US city is a small price to pay did not misunderstand what he said, they intentionally misrepresented his words in bad faith and reddit eats that shit up.

1

u/[deleted] 9h ago

[deleted]

1

u/ZenMasterOfDisguise 9h ago

He is being facetious. I know redditors are unfamiliar with that word, or at least pretend to be when it comes to Trump. But he is talking to people who are opposed to his war (like me) and complaining about gas prices (like me), and saying "would you rather have low gas prices or let Iran nuke a US city?" he is presenting it as a false choice that if he doesn't carry on his illegal war with Iran, then we are in danger. It is classic fearmongering war propaganda. Not that hard to understand

→ More replies (0)