#35 bj boi proves he's an askhole with his "question," "But stage an assassination and kill the shooter?"

#16 Plus, add to the fact that while 50% + 1 in the House is sufficient for impeachment, it still takes 2/3rds (67) in the Senate to convict.

That's the hurdle.

#15

Israel America Is

Committing genocide
Enacting pogroms
Waging wars of aggression
Committing war crimes
Targeting journalists
Targeting EMS workers
Targeting UN Peacekeepers
(Allowing Israel to steal) land from Lebanon
Torturing children
Targeting civilians

A president who, in the name of the USA, sucked us into a stupid illegal immoral war with a cowardly assassination of Iran's leader, which murdered babies in a craven sneak attack

All on our dime

---- Israel America. they're evil

#15 | Posted by the truthhurts of every other nation other than the USA or Israel at 2026-04-19 05:55 PM

#13 Clown accurately observes, "And the world is isolating us."

100% correct.

That's at the core of my #10 retort:

#7 | #8 | #9 | #11 all overlook the fact that their hatred of Bibi (albeit well-justified) extends to every single Israeli citizen. As dibblda says in his #11: "They voted for this. No one made them."

Now, clown brings it home (thank you): "And the world is isolating us."

And why is that?

Because the world is just as judgmental of America because "We (all Americans) voted for this (Trump)...

... as #7 | #8 | #9 | #11 are judgmental of Israel for having elected Bibi (which, in a parliamentarian system, is not the case).

But here we are.

The world is viewing the USA just the way many denizens here are viewing Israel.

#5 People tend to elect messengers, regardless of message being peddled.

Sometimes even in spite of the message being peddled.

During one of his presidential campaigns, a woman yelled out to Adlai Stevenson, "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" The Senator responded, "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

#11 America voted for Trump. No one made us.

#25 bj boi actually says, "You're now on the time out list for a few months. I will not respond to you. I'll just pretend I don't see you."

#7 | #8 | #9 Yodagirl says, "When Netanyahu is out of office (and hopefully in prison for life) and Israel regains it's sanity, I will go back to supporting the Israeli's."

How about...

When Netanyahu Trump is out of office (and hopefully in prison for life) and Israel America regains it's sanity, I will go back to supporting the Israeli's Americans.

I can go with that.

#20 bj boi says, "Has there ever really been a solution?"

Well, there was a start...

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the Iran nuclear deal, is a 2015 agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany) plus the EU to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. It mandates strict monitoring of enrichment, heavy water production, and inspections to prevent weaponization.

Too Obama, doncha know?

#5 There is no such thing.

#36 Choosing purity (and a loud mouth) over political success.

A recipe for a future Whig History Lesson.

#31 lown says, "Democrats need to attract voters."

Yeah?

By having ostensible "allies" damn successful Democratic candidates/officeholders, Clown?

#31 | #32 Focus, Clown:

Who do you want running the USA government (White House, Congress, SCOTUS):

Democrats?

Or Republicans?

There are no nuances here.

Step up.

Which do you prefer running the USA government:

Democrats?

Or Republicans?

#32 A non-sequitur response.

#31 A non-sequitur response.

#28 "But I'd have to weigh the weight of such decisions."

That's mighty white of you, Clown.

--- America, you know best.

Right?

#28 With "allies" like you ("the democratic candidate will have to suffice.") ...

...who the --- needs enemies.

#26 You said, " ... the preferred option is the Non AIPAC, Non Republican candidate."

And if the choice is the Democratic candidate who is "pro-AIPAC" and the Republican candidate is also "pro-AIPAC," who do you advocate voting for?

And if the choice is the Democratic candidate who is "pro-AIPAC" and the Republican candidate is "anti-AIPAC," who do you advocate voting for?

And if the choice is the Democratic candidate who is "pro-AIPAC" and the Republican candidate is also "pro-AIPAC" or anti-APAIC, who do you advocate voting for, when the balance of power in the Congress is at stake?

You live in LA in California, you never have to worry about the balance of power in Washington DC.

But why are you (and others) hell bent on destroying the only alternative to Trump/conservatism/GOP, etc: the Democratic Party.

#23 What you're saying is Look for the unicorn.

Reality is so much more difficult.

Tis either Democrats or Republicans in charge of the White House, Congress and SCOTUS.

Me?

I prefer Democrats.

You, apparently, prefer purity over power.

And the GOP wins every time.

#20 Stop being an apostate to Caius Marcius Coriolanus' demand for non-AIPAC candidates only... despite its purposeful delay of the eventual repair of the years/damage of Trump.

The time for internecine warfare is not now.

#19 Clownshack says, "Pretty sure the preferred option is the Non AIPAC, Non Republican candidate."

So, preempting any/all Democratic candidates because they're not pure (anti-AIPAC)?

In that case, the Republican candidate is the preferred candidate?

Is that what you're saying, Clownshack?

I ask because few voters could ever differentiate your nuanced position (""Pretty sure the preferred option is the Non AIPAC, Non Republican candidate."") from DON'T VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS BECAUSE AIPAC.

Vis-a-vis: Caius Marcius Coriolanus says: Vote Republican because Democrats are AIPAC

No room for nuance there.

#17 #15 As do I, my friend, DBT2.

As I do.

#14 Translation: Virginia should have elected the Republican (Winsome Earle-Sears) over the Democrat (Abigail Spanberger)

#44 Flag: