Seeley

@stevemur @JamesSurowiecki @JohnSmi41925514 @EWErickson If that’s what Blanche meant he could have said it. But he didn’t. People are commenting about what he actually said.

You could not infer that he was talking about alcohol? Do you seriously think he was telling people that all restaurants require ID on every single visit? Or is it more likely that he meant “hey, most restaurants ask to see ID when you order a drink, so why is it such a problem to require one when we vote?” What’s the more likely guess as to what he meant?

My local Taco Mac makes everyone show their ID before ordering a beer. It's a wings and taco place, not a strip club. Does this person not live in the real world?

@jaiboregio @crampell @JuliaDavisNews walk into a restaurant ≠ order a drink

@crampell @JuliaDavisNews Have you all never been asked for ID before ordering a drink? I was until I was 30. You really should have a nighttime moisturizing routine, ladies.

A friend asks: “Has it occurred to anyone that the MAGAs think you have to show IDs at restaurants because they’ve been eating all their meals at strip clubs? This isn’t even an unreasonable theory”

@joekent16jan19 @FeserEdward I’m all for not doubling down. However does not the US administration have a moral responsibility to fix the problems it just created?

POTUS is laying out two courses of action—a negotiated settlement, or a major escalation. There is a third option, and he should take it: recognize there is no way to force a positive outcome and simply leave. The region is not ours to fix. President Reagan chose this path in Lebanon in ‘84, withdrawing U.S. forces after the Beirut barracks bombing once it became clear the mission’s stabilization goals could not be met, effectively ending direct American military involvement and avoiding a deeper quagmire and long-term entrenchment in the region. A negotiated settlement is unlikely to work or be taken seriously by the Iranians unless we make concessions on the enrichment issue. As we saw yesterday in the SOH, the IRGC is empowered to act without the consent of the civilian leadership, so it’s likely they won’t honor any deal reached. A major escalation will lead to a very destructive outcome for Iran, the region, and eventually the U.S. If POTUS chooses brute force and targets civilian infrastructure, we will create another generation of radicalized Iranians who will rally around the regime and escalate the war by any means possible. If POTUS opts to strike the civilian infrastructure, declare victory, and then leave, we will only further erode our standing in the world, the petrodollar, and eventually our status as the world’s reserve currency holder. We need to get out now. Don’t double down on failure. Avoid the sunken cost trap, leave now, and put America’s interests first.

@firstchecker2 @FeserEdward I don’t consider this to be choosing “to ignore” “Defenders of the Iran war are rightly outraged at the crimes of the Iranian regime and routinely cite the numbers of civilians it has killed.”

@FeserEdward The fact is that more than 30,000 Iranian civilians have been killed, but Dr. Feser chooses to ignore most of them. He chooses to condemn people who are closer and therefore easier to condemn. That's much more fun for a self-righteous person.

Liberating the Iranian people has been among the constantly shifting rationalizations for the war, but they remain unliberated. Meanwhile, around 1700 Iranian civilians have so far been killed. For perspective, that’s a larger number than the 1200 killed by Hamas in its Oct 7 attack on Israel. Defenders of the war are rightly horrified by the second number, but they give the first number a shrug. Yet in both cases we’re talking about the deaths of innocent people. It is true that Hamas deliberately targeted their victims whereas the U.S. and Israel did not deliberately kill the 1700 Iranian civilians. It is true that that is a morally important difference. But defenders of the war pretend that that is the end of the story, and it is not. As just war doctrine teaches, a risk of bringing about unintended civilian casualties can in some cases be morally permissible, but not if the harm thereby inflicted is out of proportion to the good that the military action in question aims to achieve. Otherwise the risk to civilians is gravely immoral (just as reckless endangerment is gravely immoral and just as involuntary manslaughter is a serious crime). The U.S. and Israel have in past wars clearly violated this principle. For example, the Iraq war brought about 150,000-200,000 civilian casualties, and on some estimates as high as 600,000. By comparison, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of between 250,000 and 290,000 Iraqis. Israel’s war in Gaza brought about over 57,000 civilian deaths, including the deaths of over 21,000 children (in retaliation for Oct 7, on which, again, 1200 Israeli civilians were killed). The principle of double effect obviously cannot justify the civilian deaths in Iraq and Gaza, which are massively out of proportion to the good these military actions were claimed to bring about. Thankfully, the number of civilian deaths in Iran has so far been much smaller than these numbers (though it would climb rapidly if the president were to make good on his threat to destroy Iranian civilian infrastructure). But it is still significant. Defenders of the Iran war are rightly outraged at the crimes of the Iranian regime and routinely cite the numbers of civilians it has killed. But they are disturbingly unmoved by the Iranian civilian deaths the war has caused, just as they seem unmoved by civilian deaths in Iraq and Gaza (which critics of the Iran war have pointed to as concrete historical evidence of how reckless the U.S. and Israel can be with civilian lives). You can’t have it both ways. If you sincerely care about the innocent – as opposed to just using them as a political prop – then you cannot give their deaths a shrug when it is “our side” causing them.

@RealJasonNelson @redsteeze @amanpour @CNNPR Go ahead — post a quote of Amanpour saying she obtained the rank of Major in the United States military. I’ll wait.

@Seeleycat @redsteeze @amanpour @CNNPR I don’t think you can read. I’m sorry about that. Not that you can understand my sympathy, you know, cause you’re illiterate.

Using the Pentagon podium to lash out at journalists in extreme biblical terms is unprecedented, misguided, and frankly wrong on the substance. Ever since Sunday School Catholic classes, I have been well aware of the Scribes and the Pharisees. They were the bad guys against Jesus, the good guy… in current U.S. good v evil war parlance. Bearing witness to the truth is what we journalists are commanded to do, without fear nor favor. I am also well aware of the Ten Commandments, and therefore urge any government radical anywhere, to follow the 9th… against bearing false witness. And finally an observation: the current Secretary of War, f/k/a Defence, left the military with the rank of Major. I recall my dogtag in the first Gulf war had the rank of major... the very same rank. Just sayin’!

@redsteeze @amanpour @CNNPR Can you read? That is NOT what she said.

@amanpour Uh, can we get some clarifiction on this one @CNNPR. Your reporter is claiming to have obtained the rank of Major in the United States military.

@HooverDave @RonFilipkowski MAGAt actually believes what Trump says. lol Did you also believe Trump when he said the pic showed him as a doctor?

Just maybe Trump is smarter than you think - removed nuclear threat - taking control of the worlds oils pathways - generating new revenue through oil and tariffs - bringing business back to US with tariffs, deregulation all while stock market is at all time high and he did it in just over a year, before the mid-terms this administration is absolutely cooking and no one seems to understand it

Nobody declares victory after losses more often or as loudly as Donald Trump.

@JulesVerne29 @FoxNews @Pontifex Donald Trump threatened to kill the entire Iranian civilization. When the Pope said that threat to the whole Iranian population (the innocent, elderly, children…) was “truly unacceptable” did you have an issue with the Pope’s empathy then? youtu.be/PhgM6dmRZww?si…

I am a Christian all my life, but I will NOT and NEVER show support for an Iranian regime that slaughtered its own citizens, over 40,000 since January and thousands more before then including a friends mum!!! So NO I will never agree nor understand where @Pontifex selective empathy comes from!

NEW: President Trump brags even if he disagrees with the Pope, his brother is "MAGA all the way": "I have nothing against the Pope. His brother is MAGA all the way. I like his brother, Louis." REPORTER: "But why are you fighting with him?" PRESIDENT TRUMP: "I'm not fighting with him. The Pope made a statement. He says Iran can have a nuclear weapon. I say Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon." "I have a right to disagree with the Pope."

@JulesVerne29 @FoxNews @Pontifex The Pope did not show empathy for the Iranian regime. Also, Trump has done nothing to replace that murderous regime. He says he has, but it’s a lie. The new leader is from the same regime but MORE hard line than the recently killed leader.

@Shotgungreen1 @FoxNews Sounds like you believed Trump’s flat out lie that the Pope says Iran can have a nuclear weapon. He didn’t. Saying the Pope should have “good explanations” for something he didn’t say is not a logical argument.

@FoxNews You can't argue with that logic. If the Pope steps onto the political stage, he better have some good explanations for his rhetoric. Otherwise he risks damaging his position in a violent world where thousands of Christian lives have been taken at the hands of extreme islamists.

@NY_LBSS @DavidAFrench @NY_LBSS you're misunderstanding @DavidAFrench's point, then calling him a moron. “Legitimate authority” is a necessary condition in just-war theory, but not a sufficient one. Failing it disqualifies a war—but meeting it doesn’t automatically justify it.

@DavidAFrench You’re a legit moron. So if Congress voted for and approved the war it would suddenly be just then and you would have no issue?

This is a critical point. A war that’s unlawful under domestic law — in defiance of our sovereign (the Constitution) — can’t be a just war.

@SturmMedik_LT @IhoPwaitress74 @clashreport You do realize they’re Iraqi, right?

@IhoPwaitress74 @clashreport Did you even watch the video? He literally says "Sadam and his henchmen".

Stephen Miller sighs as Trump talks about his war against Iran.

@ArizonaDiy60249 @factpostnews @TheDemocrats I did say the first part of the tweet is true. Not sure how that is sliding by me. As for this, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

@Seeleycat @factpostnews @TheDemocrats So the fact get killed 40,000 protestors just slides on by you. You loseres ruoted over one person, who interfering with federal law enforcement, being killed when she tried to run a man over with her vehicle.

This morning, Trump: - Admitted gas prices may get even higher by the midterms - Said he was "fine with" his statement about wiping out a whole civilization - Called news outlets "treasonous" for their reporting on the Iran war - Mused about bombing Iranian civilian infrastructure

@ArizonaDiy60249 @factpostnews @TheDemocrats None of the screenshots show what the tweet claimed.  They’re not UN HRC leadership roles, they don’t show UK/FR/ES support, and they’re not 90 days after the protests.    The original claim is false.  Please don’t spread misinformation.

@Seeleycat @factpostnews @TheDemocrats

@ArizonaDiy60249 @factpostnews @TheDemocrats Sure, I will explain it This is disinformation made into a viral tweet to spread it. The first part is true. The second part is not This is called “anchored misinformation.” Once the anchor is accepted, the add‑on rides along unquestioned. Please do not spread disinformation

@factpostnews @TheDemocrats Explain this:

@ncole_r This is false. You did make it up. Iran is not a member of the UN Human Rights Council, nor did UK, France, and Spain support Iran for a leadership role. Stop lying.

🔴 You can’t make this up. In January, the Iranian regime killed +40,000 protesters in the streets, including children as young as 8. Just 90 days later, countries like the UK, France, and Spain supported Iran’s appointment to a leadership role on a UN human rights body.

@jblair247 @carlquintanilla @LouMannheim87 Did you even bother to read the article?

@carlquintanilla @LouMannheim87 Silicon Valley. Nothing to do with Newsom policy, if anything it should have been way bigger instead of driving some of that to Texas.

“Of all the prevailing media narratives around Gavin Newsom, the one that is most conspicuous by its absence is how under its two-term governor California became the top performing economy not just among its 49 siblings but also any developed nation.” bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

@6060Bt @JustinWolfers Bot

@JustinWolfers Just look at what that Socialist from Kenya did.

The University of Michigan has been measuring consumer sentiment since 1952. We just got the first Iran-afflicted measure for April, and it's at the lowest level ever recorded.

@Mithrandir48 @snowytrade @Osinttechnical The leaders are NOT all eliminated. Stop suckering in to Trump’s rubbish.

@snowytrade @Osinttechnical Honestly? If I was being held down by a dictatorship and the leaders were all eliminated then I'd be getting my hands on a HAM radio and/or Starlink and declaring my independence, grab my 12 gauge shotgun and hit the streets with my boys.

American voters appear to want complete regime change in Iran, while also ending the war as quickly as possible.

@Mithrandir48 @snowytrade @Osinttechnical Very “courageous” to sit on your couch and say what you WOULD do.