Super Don

The RSB Show Sunday Conversation is on‼️ rumble.com/askrsb @rumblevideo @DarlaShine @DrHenryEaly @ItsSuperDon @Innate__Intel @KSSX18 @ukhealthradio @Madhava_Setty @ErinHNN @dulsalife @sovereignsilver @zbell321 @NickGogel @spirit_awakens @TamSouthBelle

@HealthRanger 10:05 pm here. Goodnight

Most people have no idea how late the hour is.

Six million birth records. Nearly one-third of U.S. pregnancies. Common medications prescribed during pregnancy. A 47% increased autism risk signal. And somehow, almost nobody is talking about it? No, this study does not prove causation, but it absolutely demands investigation. HHS, NIH, FDA, CDC - hello? This should not be swept under the rug. thersbshow.substack.com/p/why-is-every… @delbigtree @JeffereyJaxen @BrianHookerPhD @ChildrensHD @jonrappoport @JonMFleetwood @SecKennedy @lifebiomedguru @askrsb @VPrasadMDMPH #autism

@grok @1864Memes @Breaking911 Understood. Based on the estimates you have, come up with a best guess - low estimate and high estimate total

No single verified total exists due to attribution debates, but best estimates from US gov reports, think tanks (e.g., CSIS, Brookings), and historians put direct American deaths from Iran or proxies at ~1,000–1,200 since 1979 (Beirut 241, Iraq militias ~600, Khobar 19, Oct 7 via Hamas 46 Americans, plus others). Allies (mainly Israelis from Hamas/Hezbollah): low thousands, including 1,200+ on Oct 7 alone.

🚨 TRUMP BLASTS IRAN: "They will be laughing no longer"

@grok @1864Memes @Breaking911 What is the best educated estimate

No single verified total exists, as attribution varies by direct attacks vs. indirect proxy support. Direct US deaths from Iran/proxies since 1979: ~1,000+ (e.g., 241 Marines in 1983 Beirut barracks bombing; 603 troops in Iraq 2003-11 via Iranian-backed militias; 19 in 1996 Khobar Towers; 46 Americans on Oct 7, 2023 via Hamas; plus embassy bombings and others). America's allies (esp. Israelis via Hamas/Hezbollah): thousands more (1,200+ on Oct 7 alone, plus hundreds in prior attacks). The vast majority of overall deaths (hundreds of thousands) were in regional wars affecting locals in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.

@grok @1864Memes @Breaking911 How many of those deaths are Americans or America's allies

No single verified total exists, as "linked to" varies by direct actions, proxy support, or indirect effects amid disputed data. Key aggregates from US gov, think tanks, and historians since 1979: - Iran-Iraq War: 500k–1M deaths - Syria (Assad support): contributed to ~500k+ - Yemen (Houthis): ~400k (mostly indirect) - Proxies/terrorism (Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.): thousands (e.g., 241 in 1983 Beirut, 1,200+ on Oct 7) - Domestic repression: tens of thousands Hundreds of thousands to over 1 million overall at minimum.

@grok @1864Memes @Breaking911 So what is the estimated total

No single verified total exists, as "linked to" depends on direct actions, proxy support, or broader wars, with figures often disputed amid propaganda. Key estimates since 1979: - Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): ~500,000–1M total deaths (Iran suffered the majority). - Proxy actions (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Iraqi militias): Thousands in terrorist attacks (e.g., 241 US/ French in 1983 Beirut bombings; 1,200+ on Oct 7 via Hamas; 600+ US troops in Iraq 2003-11). - Syria civil war support for Assad: Contributed to ~500k+ deaths. - Yemen/Houthis: Linked to ~400k total (mostly indirect). - Domestic repression/executions: Tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands overall at minimum, per US gov, think tanks, and historians.

@grok @1864Memes @Breaking911 How many deaths can be linked to Iran or their proxies over the last 50 years

No, neither total automatically justifies military intervention for humanitarian reasons. Both represent tragic scales of deaths in suppressing protests, but legitimacy hinges on verified intent (genocide-level atrocities vs. crackdown), exhausted diplomacy/sanctions, UN/international consensus, proportionality, and realistic success odds without worse chaos. Scale influences urgency but isn't the sole decider—outcomes and risks do.

@grok @1864Memes @Breaking911 Would both death totals justify a military response for humanitarian reasons?

Yes, the scale matters in weighing any military response. A higher toll (like 36,500 vs. 6,200) signals a larger humanitarian crisis, which could strengthen arguments for urgency or proportionality under frameworks like responsibility to protect—while lower numbers might favor non-military options. All responses still hinge on verified facts, strategic risks, and outcomes, not just the count.

@grok @1864Memes @Breaking911 If one was weighing a military in response to Iran killing its own people, should the response be different if Iran committed 6,200 murders versus 36,500 murders?

**No.** The 42,000 figure comes directly from Trump's recent statements about the 2025–2026 Iran protests crackdown. Independent monitors like HRANA verify ~6,200 deaths (mostly protesters), with some opposition/exile sources estimating up to ~36,500. Official Iranian figures are ~3,100. The true toll is disputed due to the internet blackout and restricted access, but it was a deadly suppression with thousands killed.

Do you have your Pan Runners yet? #Panran @delbigtree @joshbucky @JeffereyJaxen @ChildrensHD @askrsb

@PunkDude37 @joeroganhq He's an adult. He is talking about children.

@joeroganhq "But I'll take TRT, DMT, Ivermectin and other drugs!"

Joe Rogan: "People don’t wanna believe that pharmaceutical drug companies are willing to sell you things that are gonna harm your child, but they are. They always have been and they always will."

Bill Maher’s audience laughs as he’s forced to remind liberals “you’re not a good person” if you want Trump killed. “He’s not Hitler!” “I would just like to say, if you… watched that and were disappointed the president wasn’t killed…” [Audience laughs] “See, they’re laughing at that. You’re not a good person or a smart person, but definitely not a good person.” “I was reading this, in your [NYT] paper interview with Governor Pritzker of Illinois, and they asked him, what does the next president have to be. And he said ‘good, decent and kind,’ which, who can disagree with that? And certainly Trump has often not been good, decent or kind.” [Bret Stephens tries to butt in]: “Right, but also —” “But he’s not Hitler!” Maher fires back, shutting him down. “Liberals used to always say, and they were right to say it, that a lot of this very violent rhetoric that we hear on the left, it inspires the borderline personalities to then do something. And they were right. I never thought they were wrong. But the shoe’s on the other foot now.” “I mean, it’s on both feet. But you got to own this kind of rhetoric. This is why I was against this ‘he’s Hitler’ bullshit. I mean, if you really believe that he is a Hitler McPedophile, then you kind of have to kill him. That’s the mentality they have.”

If we see food prices and electric bills starting to rise over the summer, it likely won't be because of inflation, policy, or who the President is. It will have everything to do with water. We are possibly at the beginning of a megadrought cycle that could change America fast. Modern society was built during a relatively wet period, where water was abundant. But we could be returning to a very dry period like the drought of 1610. Prepare now. Stock food. Grow some if you can.

Nothing infuriates an uninformed Congressional Dem more than when they realize they voluntarily triggered a debate with someone who actually knows what they are talking about, reads federal statute and adheres to Supreme Court precedent. Today’s self-implosion by @rosadelauro was quite remarkable to witness. Without apology or regret, I will always adhere to the best available reading of federal statute pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright.

Nice straw man with a perfect solution fallacy baked in. Given your broader pattern of anti-Trump commentary, this reads less like a serious logical rebuttal and more like partisan mockery. Your argument treats a secure ballroom as if it would be pointless because it would not eliminate every possible security risk to a president. That’s like saying it’s stupid to put locks on your doors at home because you’re eventually going to go outside. A secure ballroom would not mean Trump, or any future president, would never appear at public events again. It would simply reduce risk for events that can reasonably be held in a more secure location. Security measures do not have to solve every possible danger in order to be worthwhile.

@HarmeetKDhillon It's as though you MAGA influencer types think people are so stupid as to believe that, once the ballroom is built (that is, if it's ever built), Trump and future Presidents will hold all public events at the ballroom, as if politics, campaigning, etc. are no longer important.

Capitol Hilton is not the right venue for such events. Build the ballroom!

Nice straw man with a perfect solution fallacy baked in. Given your broader pattern of anti-Trump commentary, this reads less like a serious logical rebuttal and more like partisan mockery. Your argument treats a secure ballroom as if it would be pointless because it would not eliminate every possible security risk to a president. That’s like saying it’s stupid to put locks on your doors at home because you’re eventually going to go outside. A secure ballroom would not mean Trump, or any future president, would never appear at public events again. It would simply reduce risk for events that can reasonably be held in a more secure location. Security measures do not have to solve every possible danger in order to be worthwhile.

@MeghanMcCain It's almost as if you and MAGA think we're stupid enough to believe that, once the ballroom is built (if it's ever finished), Trump and all future Presidents will *never* leave the protective bubble of the White House and ballroom, as if campaigning and politics don't exist.

I don’t want to hear one more fucking criticism of Trump’s new ballroom at the White House.

Nice straw man with a perfect solution fallacy baked in. Given your broader pattern of anti-Trump commentary, this reads less like a serious logical rebuttal and more like partisan mockery. Your argument treats a secure ballroom as if it would be pointless because it would not eliminate every possible security risk to a president. That’s like saying it’s stupid to put locks on your doors at home because you’re eventually going to go outside. A secure ballroom would not mean Trump, or any future president, would never appear at public events again. It would simply reduce risk for events that can reasonably be held in a more secure location. Security measures do not have to solve every possible danger in order to be worthwhile.

This is so stupid. It's as though these MAGA influncer drones assume that, once the ballroom is built (if it's ever built), Trump and all future Presidents will *never* leave the bubble of the White House and the ballroom to do public events offsite, as if politics doesn't exist.