hitech lolife

🇺🇸🇻🇦 By the way, Trump's response to the Pope included: "If I wasn't in the White House, Leo wouldn't be in the Vatican." He claimed credit for the Pope's election. Called him weak on crime. Said he prefers Leo's brother Louis because "Louis is all MAGA. He gets it, and Leo doesn't." The leader of the free world is beefing with the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics over a war the Pope is watching kill civilians in real time. And his main argument is that the Vatican owes him one. Source: Truth Social

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump didn't send his hawks to negotiate. He sent the one person in his inner circle who never wanted this war in the first place. That's a calculated move. Vance has one of the most consistent anti-intervention records in American politics. He spent years arguing against open-ended military commitments, skeptical of exactly the kind of Middle East entanglement the U.S. is now 6 weeks deep into. Everyone in the world who follows American politics knows that about him. Trump sent him anyway. Specifically because of it. The logic is actually elegant. If you want to signal to Iran that the U.S. offer is genuine and not a trap, you don't send the architects of the bombing campaign. You send the man who visibly didn't want the bombing campaign. It gives the offer a credibility that Rubio or a career hawk simply cannot provide. Tehran knows who Vance is. They know his record. An outstretched hand from a known skeptic carries more weight than the same hand from a true believer. It also gives Trump something else. If the talks succeed, Trump gets the win. If they fail, Vance absorbs the optics of the failure, not the president. Clean separation between the war track and the peace track. Vance played the role straight. He warned Iran not to play games, called the US offer "final and best," spoke with Trump multiple times throughout the 21 hours, and walked out without a deal. He framed the failure as Iran's problem, not America's. Trump's read on sending him was this: Vance has nothing to prove. No war record to defend. No ideology to sell. Just terms on a table. Iran still said no. Which tells you the gap between the two sides isn't about who's in the room, but about what's being asked. And no amount of credible messengers closes the distance between "you can never build a nuclear weapon" and "we will never surrender that right."

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump on yesterday's failed talks with Iran: "It was a good meeting... except for one problem… they want to have nuclear weapons. And it's not gonna happen."