alt.hn

4/5/2026 at 2:27:55 PM

Japanese, French and Omani vessels cross Strait of Hormuz

 https://japantoday.com/category/politics/japanese-french-and-omani-vessels-cross-the-strait-of-hormuz

by vrganj

4/5/2026 at 3:18:16 PM

This seems like one of the first very clear indications that separating your country from the US can be beneficial. The first stone unturned - will we see more countries aligning with other powers?

by soared

4/5/2026 at 3:29:15 PM

France and Japan never distanced themselves from USA here.

I imagine France threatened to enter the conflict and that is why they got it, Iran did kill a french soldier after all, just that normally such threats happens behind closed doors so we just see the outcome.

The current Japanese leader is also a war mongerer, so I'd bet they also threatened to enter the war on USA's side if their ships weren't allowed to pass. The countries like Spain that takes Iran's side hasn't gotten their ships through yet, that seems like a weaker strategy.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 3:54:56 PM

The only countries going to war with Iran are Israel and USA. The other countries are negotiating with Iran and reportedly paying the toll. Also, the strait has been open to Spanish tankers since two weeks ago.

by Maken

4/5/2026 at 4:09:08 PM

> Also, the strait has been open to Spanish tankers since two weeks ago.

But no Spanish tankers have gone through so that doesn't seem to be accurate. An Iranian diplomat saying that publicly doesn't matter when the irgc continues to shoot them. The only known European aligned tanker to have gone through is this French one we are reading about here.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 7:32:46 PM

Yes, France did: It went with Russia and China in the revised and postponed UN resolution that does not mention use of force to reopen Hormuz.

by 54agfvb

4/5/2026 at 4:08:28 PM

France has distanced itself from Israel recently; Israel is refusing to buy more French military equipment

by tarkin2

4/5/2026 at 7:32:11 PM

This is just a culmination of the last two years of tension. The most recent friction is around Lebanon where France sees itself as the protector of its former colony.

Interesting take from Le Monde: "Israel turns its back on France as Paris struggles to maintain dialogue"

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/04/01/i...

by YZF

4/5/2026 at 7:49:09 PM

Complete nonsense, easily debunked. You should be embarrassed to post this.

by anigbrowl

4/5/2026 at 3:45:17 PM

What are on about now? France explicitely and vocally refused to enter the war. That is why their tanker passed.

by watwut

4/5/2026 at 3:50:32 PM

If that was true many more tankers would have passed from other countries that were more against the war.

France is one of few countries with large military presence in the area, that is the only thing they do more than most other countries.

Edit: And France even directly threatened to use force here. If you only read American news you wouldn't know since they want it to seem like the world is on Irans side here. What we are seeing is that Iran has started buckling to these threats, not that they are giving passage to those who didn't threaten.

> France is advising Bahrain on a draft United Nations Security Council resolution that would authorize the use of force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore global energy flows, according to three diplomats informed of the process.

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-advising-bahrain-un-s...

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 3:59:43 PM

Spanish tankers are going through. Filipinian and Indian too.

Again, what are you on about.

France was one of 3 countries that literally blocked UN resolution about opening straight by force. And president repeatedly called it "impossible".

You read weird news if you thing "a threat" of anything is making iran to let ships pass. Money and noninvolvement do.

by watwut

4/5/2026 at 4:03:46 PM

> Spanish tankers are going through

No they are not, this French ship was the first European tanker going through.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 7:42:12 PM

"X is doing B" and "Y was the first to do B" can both be true at the same time.

by vntok

4/5/2026 at 3:58:20 PM

France also joined China and Russia in blocking Bahreini resolution that would authorise "all defensive means necessary" to protect commercial shipping in the strait. That is why their tanker passed.

by maratc

4/5/2026 at 7:42:11 PM

All defensive means can mean anything. Like a military escort that would shoot back at Iran in case of an attack, which amounts to further escalation.

by petre

4/5/2026 at 7:50:01 PM

Not arguing about what that can mean; all I'm saying is that France and Iran exchanged favours.

by maratc

4/5/2026 at 7:57:00 PM

I wouldn't call non escalation a favour. It should be standard practice.

by petre

4/5/2026 at 8:00:34 PM

I wouldn't call "letting a tanker pass in international waters without blowing it up" a favour either.

by maratc

4/5/2026 at 7:31:03 PM

France also has a problem with Israel waging war in Lebanon, a former French administered teritory. As long as Israel sticks to eliminating Hezbollah only, they'll shut up about it, but anything beyond that, like that bridge bombing or displacing and killing civilians it's bound to have a negative reaction from France.

by petre

4/5/2026 at 7:18:28 PM

> France and Japan never distanced themselves from USA here.

Trump sure seems to think France did.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/31/trump-attacks-uk-france-x-po...

"President Donald Trump on Tuesday warned the U.K. and France that the U.S. “won’t be there to help you anymore,” as he vented his frustration over the close allies’ refusal to join military action against Iran."

by ceejayoz

4/5/2026 at 3:53:04 PM

> The current Japanese leader is also a war mongerer, so I'd bet they also threatened to enter the war on USA's side if their ships weren't allowed to pass.

The amount of misinformation foreign people have about Takaichi-san is staggering. She is by no means a "war mongerer" and the Japanese constitution has clear limits that prevent Japan from doing virtually anything. The reason why Japan can get a pass is because they specifically have diplomatic relations with Iran, and when she met with Trump, she promised absolutely nothing due to constitutional limits.

by Shank

4/5/2026 at 7:40:14 PM

The most an average person in the west knows about Takaichi is that she "said" Japan would go to war with China for Taiwan. That's of course not true, but the person you're replying to also thinks Spain is on Iran's side. They are clearly misinformed or lying to fit their narrative.

by simgt

4/5/2026 at 3:56:24 PM

Why would she promise anything to Trump? She just wants Iran to let them through, USA isn't blocking anyone here, USA isn't a part of that conversation.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 4:51:22 PM

why are you adding japanese honorifics when the rest of your post is in english?

by b0rtb0rt

4/5/2026 at 5:50:26 PM

In non-English texts it is not unusual to see English honorifics like Sir, Lord, Lady, Duke etc. or even Dr., Mr., Mrs.

Similarly, in English texts it is not unusual to see foreign honorifics besides the actual names.

It is quite frequent for someone who otherwise does not speak another language to address foreigners as they would be addressed in their own language in formal situations where politeness is expected, e.g. using Herr or Frau for a German, and so on, or using Takaichi-san or Takaichi-sama (more formal) instead of translating that to Mrs. Takaichi.

I think that when speaking about a prime minister, formal language is not inappropriate.

Trump is probably the most obvious chief of state whose name would look completely inappropriate in the context of using formal polite language, but this should have been an exception.

by adrian_b

4/5/2026 at 3:10:14 PM

Last week the US stated they didn't need any of the oil, and that if other countries wanted it they could go figure it out themselves. Looks like they have. And yet the US is now back to threatening Iran if they don't open up the oil.

by jghn

4/5/2026 at 3:31:20 PM

We are 1 Year and 3 months into this current administration, 2 years and 9 months remain. Despite the short period in office, so much damage and chaos has being caused by one individual and the sycophants who surround him.

It is a fact that the reputation of the USA has being damaged, perhaps not repairable for decades or more. This will have consequences.

Perhaps, I hope, Americans will take action to save the democratic norms and institutions that so many of them have claimed to cherish. Before he has dismantled and replaced too many to salvage. Or perhaps they have work tomorrow.

by e2le

4/5/2026 at 7:46:34 PM

How many people voted for that "one individual causing chaos" again? 70 million? He's also backed by billionaires and an administration that seems to be just as unhinged. It's not one person causing chaos, it's a whole country with its violent culture. The scale changed slightly, but it's also nothing new.

by simgt

4/5/2026 at 8:13:12 PM

This. There are really two explanations here. Either the US hasn't been a democracy in the first place. Or the majority of the US voters prefer autocratic amoral psychopaths running their country.

by villedespommes

4/5/2026 at 3:41:58 PM

Approximately the same things were said about Dubya Jr's war with invisible WMDs. If you've forgotten - listen to some songs that came out at the time. It's not about a particular president, it's that the US seems to have a systemic dependency on starting these wars.

by temp8830

4/5/2026 at 4:10:16 PM

Your point seems to be that the US has not changed. Regardless, the world thinks it has.

The “coalition of the willing” is not behind the US this time.

by LeFantome

4/5/2026 at 4:43:20 PM

And so this Easter day a new oxymoron is born: the coalition of the unwilling.

Do with that, in terms of foreign policy, what you will.

by anjel

4/5/2026 at 5:02:19 PM

The unwilling don’t particularly coalise.

by layer8

4/5/2026 at 4:56:31 PM

Why is that oxymoron? You can, in fact, have a coalition focused on not doing something.

by watwut

4/5/2026 at 5:05:20 PM

Yeah, its called home owners associations, NIMBY etc.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 3:48:21 PM

Back then we had approval from our coalition. We also shared the spoils, which the Russians noted.

Also, none of the Bush’s ran on an “America First” isolationist political campaign. Even own base is fracturing because of this.

by chaostheory

4/5/2026 at 4:24:56 PM

Information, both good and bad, is a lot more accessible this time around. It has been a dramatic accelerator to worldly views of America in the wake of their recent actions.

There are political similarities between the two aforementioned wars, but the social and technological backdrops are quite different, and they're working against US public perception. Furthermore, decorum is entirely gone this time around, which isn't helping.

by SecretDreams

4/5/2026 at 4:18:00 PM

and we're still experiencing damage from that war, and it's getting worse because of some things that it changed (patriot act, creation of homeland security, etc)

we've faced two major recessions since then and may very well be entering our third

at this point it seems we're just trying to find out where the breaking point is

by micromacrofoot

4/5/2026 at 7:34:20 PM

Thing is, that is not just the individual, the world lost the trust in the american vote. Trump was elected twice, it is easy to imagine that another megalomaniac might be elected next.

In a democratic system, the ruler is a reflection of the majority of the population. Of course it can change during the course of the administration (as seen in the approval ratings), but the trust is lost and most countries now believe that, one way or another, the majority of the US population agree with some of the ideas behind Trump. The damage will not stop by the end of Trump's administration, it is truly the end of multilateralism as we knew it

by augusto-moura

4/5/2026 at 4:05:35 PM

Not one individual. You forgot the ones put the yoke.

by aaa_aaa

4/5/2026 at 7:10:05 PM

> take action to save the democratic

Im beting 1000 USD that Trump comes up with whatever story/issue/incident to "manipulate" all upcoming elections to his favour

by KellyCriterion

4/5/2026 at 7:48:10 PM

If the doesn't turn up as the first US president to actually be impeached. You've got other two who got assasinated. The right to bear arms mskes that sort of thing a bit easier than impeachment.

by petre

4/5/2026 at 7:56:08 PM

Andrew Johnson was the first US President to be impeached.

Clinton too, then Trump twice.

by ceejayoz

4/5/2026 at 8:03:04 PM

Didn't go through. None of them were removed from office.

by petre

4/5/2026 at 8:04:07 PM

> None of them were removed from office.

Correct. But that's not because they weren't impeached.

Impeachment is part of the process; three presidents have been impeached, Trump twice. Then comes the trial, and conviction/acquittal.

by ceejayoz

4/5/2026 at 3:40:45 PM

My hope is that this will show weaknesses in our supposed "checks and balances" that can be patched later. If that means it takes an act of congress to even fire a single military weapon, so be it. That's just one example, but basically "they" need to backtrack and find every "hack" trump used and plug it so this never happens again.

by gosub100

4/5/2026 at 4:40:52 PM

Checks and balances mean nothing when the same party controls house, senate, president, and supreme court.

by pjc50

4/5/2026 at 5:07:48 PM

And the military. Who the majority of soldiers supports matters a lot since they have the final say when leaders cannot agree. Trump does a lot to gain favor with the military, democrats doesn't do much for them.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 7:09:44 PM

I disagree. Plenty of republicans are vociferously disagreeing with Trump over Iran and Epstein. But even if your premise is true, what if the two-party system were constructed or manipulated by a foreign government with the express intent on dividing us? Maybe that should be addressed as well?

by gosub100

4/5/2026 at 4:15:06 PM

What “checks and balances”?

The SCOTUS ruled that presidents cannot be held accountable.

The constitution is pretty clear. Trump does not have the authority to invade Iran. Yet he did. What are you planning to patch?

Despite everything, Trump has 35-40 percent approval right now. You cannot patch that out.

by LeFantome

4/5/2026 at 6:08:13 PM

the ones that were printed in my middle school government McGraw Hill textbook...

by gosub100

4/5/2026 at 7:24:00 PM

“First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.”

Turns out that last bit is how the US was setup. Oops.

by ceejayoz

4/5/2026 at 3:45:19 PM

Agreed, but the problem is that whichever party is in power wants to expand presidential authority, and only the minority party wants to reign it in. When the president flips, usually so do the parties in power. Plus you have to be enough majority to override a presidential veto. I don't see this ever workign out :-(

by freedomben

4/5/2026 at 3:49:26 PM

If you could design a perfect plan to destroy the United States, Donald Trump, probably through sheer buffoonish incompetence seems to be implementing it.

by andy_ppp

4/5/2026 at 3:59:04 PM

I don’t think he’s incompetent. He’s actually quite good at extracting wealth for himself/family/donors/friends out of whatever the administration is doing.

Iran is a distraction from the Epstein files, and the fact that many from the Trump circle appear in it - Trump himself, some of his children, Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, etc.

The war with Iran is also a way to make a few more suspicious trades on the market swings, especially the ones following each speech or decision. It would be easy to time trades if you know what will happen because you’re deciding it.

The US may be destroyed but it’s because it’s just collateral damage to the billionaires and Epstein class. Not because they’re incompetent. We need to contain their wealth and power with totally new laws.

by SilverElfin

4/5/2026 at 4:40:49 PM

You mistake for competence his greed and that of those who surround him. I don't think there was a plan to profit from the disaster; rather, they're so incompetent that they even lack the basic self-control to avoid publicly taking advantage of the mess they unwillingly caused, however bad and dangerous that might be.

by throw310822

4/5/2026 at 5:01:35 PM

I imagine Trump wanted to do some fun new things when he is old and will soon die. Its not many who get to experience what it feels like to start a war and kill world leaders, and when you are gonna die soon anyway why not?

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 7:48:36 PM

I think this is the correct lense. He's a malignant narcissist on his way out, with absolutely nobody to stop him.

I'm genuinely worried that he secretly wants to go down in history as the crazy guy who set the oil fields on fire and dropped a nuke on Tehran or something.

by sieste

4/5/2026 at 8:06:49 PM

Not sure what moves Trump- could be any of that or more. What we all know is that Netanyahu and Kushner found this and used it to get what they wanted. This is not Trump's war, he's not the initiator and he doesn't have goals of his own (though at times he might believe he does). It actually contradicts what he campaigned on for years.

by throw310822

4/5/2026 at 3:47:08 PM

> 2 years and 9 months remain

You think.

Peaceful transfers of power are always tricky in younger democracies.

by swarnie

4/5/2026 at 4:13:03 PM

My strong suspicion is that the current POTUS will leave the White House in a box. My hope is that this precedes the next election cycle.

by Arubis

4/5/2026 at 5:34:05 PM

The standard dictatorial takeover of a democracy is to keep the elections and the presidency, but to add a supreme leader above the president, similar to what Iran or Russia or China is doing. So Trump would no longer be president, he would be supreme leader joining what the other world powers are doing.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 5:32:21 PM

Do you think the ThielVance will leave peacefully?

by actionfromafar

4/5/2026 at 5:42:39 PM

They don’t have the cult of personality to hold on to power in the same way djt does.

by bebop

4/5/2026 at 3:38:02 PM

Worst case there will be another Republican president from the same tribe. We could be in for the same exact chaos and damage for another four years. This could go on for a long time.

Remember, Republicans get out and vote. They would rather suffer and destroy America just so the democrats don’t win.

by iJohnDoe

4/5/2026 at 5:11:36 PM

> They would rather suffer and destroy America just so the democrats don’t win.

This is true.

Which raises the question: could Democrats use this reality (whatever they touch is poisoned, in eyes of the other side) to steer the result a bit?

by gffrd

4/5/2026 at 3:46:03 PM

I think a large part of why they do this and vote the way they do is because of comments like yours. Hacker news, Reddit, award shows, movies, universities, etc all have a constant drum beat of disdain and hate towards them. I think this motivates them into voting even if the vote is against their own interest.

by ronnier

4/5/2026 at 4:38:54 PM

I think we're beyond the point of "you can't criticize them. That's mean and motivates them." At what point is the line drawn? Should it be in bad taste to criticize Orban supporters because it makes them support him more? What about Erdogan? Putin? Kim Jong Un? And why is it one sided that they can't be criticized, but it's all fair and good for their own leaders to demonize everyone? It's a silly double standard and people see through it now. Concern trolling stopped being effective years ago.

by kdheiwns

4/5/2026 at 4:50:33 PM

If you want to win elections, yes. You never convince voters by telling them that they are evil people. Its fine to say Trump is evil, its not fine to say Trump voters are evil because those voters will now be much less likely to vote for you. They can't take back their votes, they already voted for Trump before, so they will just not vote for you when you attack them like that.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 5:15:14 PM

Republicans have been calling democratic voters baby-killers for the entire time I have been aware of what a republican is. This sort of behavior has only gotten worse over time. They still manage to win elections.

I get that there are real asymmetries here, but I really don't think there are substantial blocs of swing voters who use "who has insulted them less" as a real factor. If that were the case, Trump would not have made the gains he did in 2024.

The important thing is to make people feel welcome in your coalition. It is clearly possible to do that either with or without being nice. It's just a different skillset.

by amalcon

4/5/2026 at 5:23:05 PM

[flagged]

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 7:23:09 PM

If you have to lie to make a point, maybe the point is invalid. And the same goes for your other comments on this page ... they have no truth to them. Low quality trash comments like "[Newsom] does seem wildly corrupt though with extreme exceptions in bills for his friends and backers, more than other politicians I've seen" and "Betting sites are trusted third parties".

I will ignore further bad arguments and baseless claims from this source.

by jibal

4/5/2026 at 6:40:24 PM

Which Democrat leaders are "attacking white men a lot"?

by myvoiceismypass

4/5/2026 at 5:01:00 PM

Dems have tried the strategy of pandering to republicans for decades. That strategy in 2024 backfired and made Dems not care about the election. The whole time republicans ran a campaign saying that blue haired democrats are harming kids and they're burning down cities and someone needs to lock them up all up. Republicans had a great election year.

Again, one sided. People are tired of it. More importantly, people are growing tired of the tolerance for the people who support the current happenings. Look around about what people who stayed out of the 2024 election said and it's that Dems were milquetoast and tried to be friendly and play both sides. Look around and see why republicans were fired up to vote. It's because they loved the demonization of Dems.

The funny thing is you can criticize the supporters. It's no problem. You can criticize Bush voters and everyone will agree with you. Why? Because nobody voted for Bush. Yet he won two elections. Meaning those people regretted their vote and now completely hide that they voted for him. They also retroactively hate the Iraq War, despite supporting it in 2003 and saying anyone who opposes it is unamerican. But those people will now say Dems started the war.

Trying to pull those people over is like trying to wrestle with a greased pig. No kind words will ever be enough to grab them. They're incredibly loyal to their side no matter what, and will deny ever supporting it the moment social pressure builds up too much. But interestingly, they also respect anger and vitriol against those they feel betrayed them. Republicans loved voting for Trump because he said he was against neocons and the Iraq War and all those people who voted for them. If Trump ever falls out of favor, those people who once supported him won't be begging for leniency. They'll put on a new hat and demand revenge against him and his supporters. They don't want a both aisles softy. They'll just pretend they were always against him.

by kdheiwns

4/5/2026 at 5:15:48 PM

> That strategy in 2024 backfired and made Dems not care about the election

Are you saying democrats didn't vote for Kamala since Kamala didn't call Trump voters evil? What are you on about? I see no reason why you should call Trump voters evil.

As I said its fine to call Trump evil, but why call the voters evil? What purpose does that serve?

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 7:12:35 PM

> Are you saying democrats didn't vote for Kamala since Kamala didn't call Trump voters evil?

Dems were disillusioned by the Biden administration's lack of meaningful effort to nail the previous administration's criminals to the wall. Merrick Garland was an absolute failure.

Add in things like cozying up to the Cheneys, and the incorrect assumption Trump II would be similar to Trump I.

by ceejayoz

4/5/2026 at 7:21:21 PM

I'm not about to bite my tongue for this absurd cowardly fallacious reason.

by jibal

4/5/2026 at 7:31:59 PM

Everything Trump has done since he was re-elected made Democrats hate him more, and more publicly, and you know what, despite that Trump's ratings have steadily fallen.

If your thesis is true, you'd expect Trump's ratings to go up.

As far as I can see, partisan hatred doesn't matter, because pretty much everybody speaking and listening to such rhetorics have already made up their minds. The battle is fought in the middle, and these people don't care about latest Truth Social posts. They care about the price of gas.

Trump fucked with the one thing people will not forget about, because their livelihood depends on it. It's going to be... interesting.

by yongjik

4/5/2026 at 5:04:32 PM

One third of Americans voted Democrat.

One third voted Republican.

One third did not vote.

I hold the last group most responsible.

by LeFantome

4/5/2026 at 5:58:49 PM

One group voted for nicely speaking tax free zillionaires. Another one voted for hate speaking zillionaires.

Third one didn't want to vote for zillionaires.

Perhaps next time there'll be someone to vote not representing the zillionaire-class?

by shrubby

4/5/2026 at 8:20:37 PM

It's hard to blame it on people not voting for options that suck and do not represent their political stance.

by PowerElectronix

4/5/2026 at 7:18:09 PM

That's a completely intellectually bankrupt argument that blames good people for the actions of bad people. It doesn't have a shred of fact or logic to support it.

by jibal

4/5/2026 at 7:03:53 PM

Bless your heart, you're doing the cartoon.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-Y...

Why are all the Democrats Fox News (and the actual President of the United States himself) does a "constant drum beat of disdain and hate towards" not doing the same thing? Why is this only a concern on one side?

by ceejayoz

4/5/2026 at 3:56:02 PM

Everything republican party do and everything republicans vote for ... are fault of the opposition. Always. Republicans are little helpless souls having no choice but cause maxinum harm as long as opposition in any for exists.

Look at what that party collectively stands for now, who they kick out and who they keep. They all stand behind trump.

by watwut

4/5/2026 at 4:19:30 PM

I learned recently that there's actually a name for this concept. Murc's law states that in American politics, only Democrats are assumed to have agency.

Presumably democratic reforms could help change the dynamic if they changed the incentives. Right now, it's a politically viable strategy to just obstruct the other party when out of power, and politically unviable strategy for Congress to oppose a president from the same party. Both of which lead to a lot of dysfunction.

As an example, if Congress had multimember districts with an appropriate voting system (e.g. ranked choice voting for all members at the same time), then you can effectively nullify the power of gerrymandered voting districts (the current system, where effectively politicians choose voters rather than the other way around). Doing so would elevate the influence of general elections over party primaries. Then representatives would be less afraid of challenges in those primaries, which is currently one of the major disincentives in opposing the president of the same political party (fear of being "primaried").

by devinplatt

4/5/2026 at 4:27:41 PM

That is just progressive vs conservative, ie changing things vs conserving things, humans are biased to conserve things unless the set of changes are overwhelmingly better.

So conservatives win when progressives push for too many changes, not changing things is the default. So saying that the democrats lost the election by pushing too fast is not weird, that is just how humans works.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 5:08:37 PM

There's definitely an asymmetry in how the systemic dysfunction benefits the Republican party over the Democratic party. (Overall the system benefits both parties though since it entrenches partisanship.)

I'd argue that the asymmetry has less to do with change vs. no change and more to do with the Republican party currently being an "anti government" party (pivoting to that post New Deal). So less is expected of them in terms of functional governance.

With respect to change: I've heard a lot of commentary that the Republican party today is more of an instigator of change than the Democratic party (being seen as a defender of the status quo), despite the traditional alignment of Republican/conservative/no change. Democrats are seen as pro-institution and Republicans anti-institution.

In case it matters, I personally don't identify with a political party. I just want functional government and politics and I see a lot of dysfunction. I'm an engineer so naturally I gravitate towards systemic solutions to systemic problems.

by devinplatt

4/5/2026 at 5:41:35 PM

> That is just progressive vs conservative, ie changing things vs conserving things.

Conserving distraction == wars, progressive distraction == LG, then B, then T, there are still letters in the alphabet to progress to - mandatory for school children to study in detail.

Conserving inflation same as progressive inflation, the small group benefiting form it - the same too.

Changing presidential candidates a few months before election and doing everything to let the other side win? Very progressive.

Promising no-more-wars and delivering more-wars? Very conservative.

Moral of the story - while 'progressive' and 'conservative' are used haphazardly, lacking precise and concrete definitions in terms of specific, measurable goals and commitments, using them for political analysis is just mud in the eyes.

by bigbadfeline

4/5/2026 at 4:25:05 PM

Unironically yes. I lived in the Seattle area and witnessed firsthand the effects of state/county/city Democrat rule. Gifted programs cancelled, streets full of homeless and drug addicts. Hateful people yelling at and flipping me off as I take my kids to daycare for the heinous crime of driving a Tesla. I’m a well educated highly paid minority, the kind of voter that Democrats take for granted. I voted Republican down the ballot last election.

by qwerpy

4/5/2026 at 4:41:27 PM

Are you familiar with the phrase “cutting off your nose to spite your face”?

by wrs

4/5/2026 at 4:58:13 PM

Assuming that people vote a certain way out of spite is narrow-minded. Talk to people outside of your bubble and try to understand them instead of reducing them down to caricatures. I don’t judge people on the left the way that I get judged by them. I genuinely think that my choice of political party is better for my family’s quality of life.

by qwerpy

4/5/2026 at 6:17:40 PM

I agree. I would vote republican locally, but I'd vote for anyone to replace Trump and his circle.

by aurareturn

4/5/2026 at 5:04:03 PM

You witnessed the firsthand effects of NIMBY rule, which both parties have in abundance.

by nozzlegear

4/5/2026 at 7:01:15 PM

So, you did not voted for centrists and chosen to vote for nazi salute throwing radicals ... because there are non meek leftists groups.

The only way to win against Trump voters like you is to ignore them, because people like you will choose nazi until nazi are the only game in town.

by watwut

4/5/2026 at 4:44:15 PM

Well let me be the first to thank you for the extra dollar a litre on my fuel, the extra hundred or so dollars a month on my mortgage and the impending recession that your choice has imposed upon me here in Australia.

Thanks so much for voting in Trump and his enablers.

by Nursie

4/5/2026 at 5:02:06 PM

Rather than blame this voter, why don't we put some blame onto the democrats. In San Francisco, progressive democrats have wasted billions on homeless and crime but with little to show for.

Sometimes democrats do push too far left. Far left is not that much different than far right.

by aurareturn

4/5/2026 at 5:06:50 PM

Horseshoe theory is real, but much like Seattle, SF's biggest problem is politically active NIMBYs (and SF has more than most places). Democrats and Republicans both have NIMBYs, it transcends political boundaries.

by nozzlegear

4/5/2026 at 6:14:56 PM

NIMBYs aren't causing homeless problems.

by aurareturn

4/5/2026 at 7:46:41 PM

"I don't want affordable apartments or housing in my backyard because it lowers my property value" is a pretty clear amplifier of homelessness.

by nozzlegear

4/5/2026 at 7:59:08 PM

You do realize that normal people who can't afford a city will just move to a cheaper area right?

by aurareturn

4/5/2026 at 8:11:49 PM

Cool.

Who staffs your stores when everyone moves away? Who mows the lawn? Who builds the houses?

by ceejayoz

4/5/2026 at 5:08:19 PM

Because, uh, Democrats didn’t do this?

I don’t really give a rats ass who runs the internals of your country, and what goes on in San Francisco seems like a you problem. Due to voters like this, Trump is now my problem many thousands of miles away.

Don’t underestimate just how much ill will he is generating around the world, especially in allied nations, by insulting leaders and pushing up all of our energy prices.

by Nursie

4/5/2026 at 3:49:22 PM

It may even be Trump again! Wouldn't be surprised if we see some movement towards removing presidential term limits. They weren't always in place and they can be removed again.

by none2585

4/5/2026 at 4:41:43 PM

why is it that democrats always assume they are the correct side and that everyone else agrees with them?

by b0rtb0rt

4/5/2026 at 5:54:34 PM

Modus operandi for the leading democracy in the world has been war also before. Now it's only bit more erratic and honest.

I sure hope that after this the return won't be the previous normal.

by shrubby

4/5/2026 at 6:55:27 PM

Honest? Trump is the most dishonest president in history. He literally says two diametrically opposite things: - we don’t need any oil - open up the strait or else severe consequences Which is it? Only fools think his opacity is a feature not a terrible bug.

by cyberge99

4/5/2026 at 3:46:02 PM

> Perhaps, I hope, Americans will take action to save the democratic norms and institutions that so many of them have claimed to cherish. Before he has dismantled and replaced too many to salvage. Or perhaps they have work tomorrow.

I'm going to take action by voting in November. Or are you suggesting revolution is more prudent, that I should put my life on the line right now because the global economy is a little fucky?

by nozzlegear

4/5/2026 at 3:58:40 PM

Interesting question. Do you believe that waiting is fine because the election will be fair in November?

by vntok

4/5/2026 at 4:43:40 PM

Yes? I've been a poll worker for every election since 2018, I have no reason to believe they won't be this time around. Do you have reason to believe that Trump isn't just full of hot air, bluster and bullshit like usual (TACO)?

by nozzlegear

4/5/2026 at 5:18:46 PM

Well yes, of course. For example this a month or so ago seems worrying: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/02/14/t...

> US President Donald Trump, on Friday, February 13, threatened to try to bypass Congress and force new voting laws ahead of the November midterm elections, where his Republican Party fears losing control of the legislature. Trump said he would soon issue an executive order attempting to impose the rules if Congress does not pass a law requiring photo identification to vote and other nationwide reforms.

> "There will be Voter ID for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. "If we can't get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order," he wrote.

by vntok

4/5/2026 at 4:03:00 PM

The sooner regime change comes in the US, the better.

by bathtub365

4/5/2026 at 3:23:06 PM

It’s the same grift all over again. The market will drop 2-3% Monday. Jared and Jr will load up on options, WTI puts, and whatever other BS they do.

Then Tuesday we’ll announce that “good talks have happened” and bridge day is delayed. Maybe they’ll roll out the Shah’s nephew or whatever and pave the way for an announcement of a transitional government.

They’ll push the strikes until late in the week or early next week to maximize volatility - next Friday is the April options expiry. It likely the Treasury is intervening in the oil markets, so there’s likely a counter-trade there as well.

I’ve 3x’d my salary on this trade as an observer, the insiders are printing cash. Eventually the credibility of the office of the POTUS will erode to a point where it is going to blow up, we probably have another 3-5 rounds of this.

by Spooky23

4/5/2026 at 3:12:52 PM

It is the weekend, of course there is a threat. Tomorrow there will be a deal.

by hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

4/5/2026 at 3:46:43 PM

> And yet the US is now back to threatening Iran if they don't open up the oil.

Trump's most recent statement ( https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1163519987825... ):

"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP"

by ndiddy

4/5/2026 at 4:25:18 PM

There was a time when The Onion might have run a headline like "Concerned over low troop morale, President converts to Islam to inspire spirit of martyrdom". No more.

by rchaud

4/5/2026 at 4:22:03 PM

He's thiiiiiisss >< close to threatening to drop a nuke on Tehran isn't he

by morkalork

4/5/2026 at 4:49:45 PM

Go back to Reddit where you belong

by rockemsockem

4/5/2026 at 5:39:02 PM

If you're going to judge people's quality of online commentary, I can think of a "bigger fish to fry" than myself. They're even quoted in this very thread!

by morkalork

4/5/2026 at 4:09:06 PM

Given the events of the past month...

Are we at a point where we can conclusively say that the United States is a country that wants to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth?

Bombing them into the stone age where they belong, complete destruction of them, no quarter, decapitation strikes, bridge day, etc?

by vkou

4/5/2026 at 3:18:41 PM

New deal: There is a toll 5 million usd per tanker, and oil must be paid in RNB not USD.

Basically Iran put sanction on US. I guess Trump expected fight or something.

by throw949449

4/5/2026 at 4:34:39 PM

>And yet the US is now back to threatening Iran if they don't open up the oil.

Because no matter how much they pretend it doesn't affect the US, oil is a global market.

by Hamuko

4/5/2026 at 4:11:15 PM

Israel wants to completely destroy Iran so than no one would be willing to in any way challenge its occupation of Palestine, nor its ambition to expand into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and beyond.

Then there's an element of extremist Christian ideology from Pete H. etc.

Hormuz has little to do with it, it's just an excuse to destroy Iran.

Trump has been convinced that the Iranians are after him, plus there's the Epstein kompromat that the Israelis have on him. He's the only US president compromised enough to destroy Iran for them, war crimes and all.

by Matl

4/5/2026 at 7:40:59 PM

The oil narrative is what worked after Iraq war and I am afraid it will work now

by postsantum

4/5/2026 at 3:56:12 PM

>And yet the US is now back to threatening Iran...

It's not you specifically, but there's a broader sociological problem where we anthropomorphize countries and then claim they are doing things.

The average person in the US is not threatening Iran, and rationally the US cannot be said to be threatening Iran. What's happening is that an elite clique of Epstein-adjacent legacy-power-trolls (aka The US Government) are threatening Iran.

The US does not have legs, arms, or hands, it cannot do anything. This turn of phrase in which the US (or any country) does something is a semantic-contraption of legacy-power designed to make citizens (whether left, right, or undecided) feel psychologically-responsible for the actions of a entrenched-class of elite-warmongers who do not represent them; and have not represented them for, likely, thousands of years.

by The_Goonies1985

4/5/2026 at 4:07:29 PM

Israel recently refused to buy more French military equipment, and France's relations with Israel is at a low; I'm wondering it was the reason the French vessel was allowed through.

by tarkin2

4/5/2026 at 4:41:25 PM

Israel also recently killed three UN soldiers and bombarded positions a few meters away from french soldiers. The french ministry of defence wasn't exactly thrilled with this.

by LunaSea

4/5/2026 at 7:23:47 PM

They announced they will veto military actions to open Straight of Hormuz in the UN security council.

by clydethefrog

4/5/2026 at 4:09:46 PM

France hasn't bought Israeli weapons systems and vice versa for years, so it's just a quick populist win with 0 practical implications either way.

That said, French and Israeli vendors like Thales, IAI, Dassault, Rafael, Elbit, etc still collaborate closely becuase they are both OEMs, vendors, and JV partners in Indian defense deals that integrate both into Indian weapons systems - especially as both are integrated (along with Russian and indigenous weapons systems) with what is become Indians version of the Iron and Steel dome [0][1]. Vietnam is mandating the same thing as part of their 2045 Drone manufacturing strategy [2].

And both MIC ecosystems still collaborate together on defense deals back in Armenia, Cyprus, and Greece.

Most countries that historically had a Soviet/Russian kit are now mandating French+Israeli interoperability becuase of India's success at using it to replace older Soviet or Russian systems where possible.

[0] - https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/news-centre/press-releases/th...

[1] - https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/64841

[2] - https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/asie-pacifique/2026/03/02/...

by alephnerd

4/5/2026 at 7:41:24 PM

That is a good move from Iran. The EU is tired of US induced wars, tired of Greenland threats and just wants to focus on its economy.

In a US war you always have to ask yourself if you do exactly what the US wants in secret. Here it could very well be that the Gulf monarchies are deliberately weakened and the EU/Japan/China are cut off from fossil fuels, so they are even more dependent on the US.

by 54agfvb

4/5/2026 at 3:46:47 PM

There’s every chance that the US loses the trust of the GCC countries and they choose to spend their oil money away from the US should all of this madness ever calm down.

by andy_ppp

4/5/2026 at 4:36:35 PM

It's extremely unlikely without a common currency and a military alliance with larger, more populous states like Egypt and Iraq. The former would be unacceptable as it would represent a competitor to the Petrodollar, and the latter would be a threat to Israel.

by rchaud

4/5/2026 at 3:09:08 PM

Just about a week ago, Trump was joking about Pearl Harbor on TV while the Japanese PM was sitting right next to him. What's more, she's a nationalist.

by ogogmad

4/5/2026 at 3:21:41 PM

Remember that video about ethnical clensing gaza, beach resort casinos and golden Trump statues? Real estste crypto bro version of hitler!

by throw949449

4/5/2026 at 3:54:23 PM

If only Hollywood had have let Trump be in more films than Home Alone 2, none of this would have happened!

by andy_ppp

4/5/2026 at 3:58:13 PM

That's a revenge for not letting him to play his character in Back to the Future.

by lifestyleguru

4/5/2026 at 5:23:33 PM

Or in Super Mario Bros 1993

by fhdkweig

4/5/2026 at 3:12:42 PM

[dead]

by cybermango

4/5/2026 at 4:34:01 PM

[flagged]

by zozbot234

4/5/2026 at 4:43:38 PM

> This is a moment that ALL Americans, Republican, Democrat, Independents, everybody

You lost me here. He wouldn’t say this.

by dyauspitr

4/5/2026 at 3:07:53 PM

The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults, will need to offer great concessions to Iran in order to extricate from the effects of a disastrous, illegal (both from a US as well as an intentional standpoint) and of course, completely, utterly failed war. And it might be just that Iran gets to be a permanent toll collector for the global economy.

by zzzeek

4/5/2026 at 3:42:13 PM

> The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults

Betting says next president will be Gavin Newsom or JD Vance or Marco Rubio, so I wouldn't bet on that happening anytime soon. It is weird how so bad people bubble up in american politics.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 4:44:48 PM

I wish with all my heart it’s going to be Newsom. Perfectly center left just like I like it.

by dyauspitr

4/5/2026 at 7:32:41 PM

I can assure you that no "center left" president will be fixing any problems in the middle east anytime soon

by feb012025

4/5/2026 at 4:59:56 PM

He does seem wildly corrupt though with extreme exceptions in bills for his friends and backers, more than other politicians I've seen. He is probably better than Trump or JD Vance but that isn't saying much.

I too mostly agree with his populist center takes, but that doesn't mean he is reasonable.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 3:42:45 PM

none of those three people will be president

by zzzeek

4/5/2026 at 3:45:04 PM

Then you can get rich by betting against it, so most people seem to disagree with you. And in a democracy most people decide who the next leader will be.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 4:22:22 PM

If I interpret the odds correctly the site is saying Newsom has 22% chance and Vance has 20% chance. These odds seem rather low.

by rawgabbit

4/5/2026 at 4:33:17 PM

Still above 50% chance one of the 3 people I mentioned will become next president according to the betting odds.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 5:51:59 PM

betting markets aren't "most people"

by zzzeek

4/5/2026 at 4:11:28 PM

Why would you assume that the parent (1) has a gambling addiction, (2) has enough side money they can lock into a far-away bet and (3) wants to place a bet that will more than probably never pay anyway because it won't be insured nor escrowed by a trusted third party?

Buying or selling stocks of companies owned by MAGA henchmen is probably much safer.

by vntok

4/5/2026 at 4:17:15 PM

> Buying or selling stocks of companies owned by MAGA henchmen is probably much safer.

Not if you are 100% sure, which the poster seemed to be. Its not gambling if its a sure case. So you saying this is a risky bet means you disagree with the person.

> wants to place a bet that will more than probably never pay anyway because it won't be insured nor escrowed by a trusted third party?

Betting sites are trusted third parties.

Anyway, I wasn't telling him to bet on it. My point is that it is weird to say those for sure wont be the next president when most bettors are betting on those being the next president. You saying this is a risky bet means you disagree with him as well.

by Jensson

4/5/2026 at 4:31:39 PM

> Not if you are 100% sure, which the poster seemed to be. Its not gambling if its a sure case. So you saying this is a risky bet means you disagree with the person.

This is incorrect. You can be sure, certain even, of a specific outcome, and yet still be scammed out of your money by the entity that took your bet.

> Betting sites are trusted third parties.

No they aren't, lol. Of course they aren't. Many are illegal, most operate from shady jurisdictions, all have unclear T&Cs and so on.

by vntok

4/5/2026 at 3:14:34 PM

No matter who controls the US in the future, it will never go back to the position it once had globally.

It's been actively harming it's allies, threatening them with invasion and conspiring with their enemies.

The rest of the world cannot afford to give the American people the benefit of the doubt.

After Trump I, there was hope it was just a fluke. Trump II is much worse and cements the unreliability of the American voting public.

by vrganj

4/5/2026 at 3:40:39 PM

Never is a long time. Look at where Germany was after both WWI and WWII, and where it is now; it's demonstrably possible to cause irreparable damage to everyone around you, and then rise back to the top (multiple times!). The only questions are timeline and scale.

by nozzlegear

4/5/2026 at 4:36:26 PM

Germany got a new type of government. The 2/3 required in USA for significant change will be insurmountable short of a disaster on order of second Great Depression since plurality of American voters can’t see past next paycheck, no Democrat that can win Presidential primary has any kind of revolutionary vision, it’s all muted, even Bernie got squashed by centrist voters eventually and he was not even that far to the left IMHO - he even stayed away from race or gender issues.

by stevenwoo

4/5/2026 at 4:42:49 PM

Germany changed its constitution, banned its former ruling party, and actively explores and teaches their school kids about their crimes. The US on the other hand has a chunk of its electorate flying Confederate flags and voting for politicians who think US history textbooks should be more "pro-American".

by rchaud

4/5/2026 at 7:36:35 PM

Look at where Germany is now?

They're a total non-player on the world stage. They completely kowtow to the US. Hardly a good example

by feb012025

4/5/2026 at 3:51:39 PM

Germany wasn't and isn't the world's hegemon.

I don't think that position is recoverable the same way.

by vrganj

4/5/2026 at 4:03:49 PM

You also have to consider the outside intervention forcibly imposed upon Germany, after being defeated in war both times, and how the first round of that contributed directly to WWII. It's not exactly a playbook to copy verbatim.

by evilduck

4/5/2026 at 3:53:26 PM

This. We all thought Trump was a crazy accident but the fact that he almost beat Biden, and then did beat Harris, means we just can't trust Americans to put sensible people in charge. Assuming a democrat takes the office next, they will inherit an economy in tatters, a failing infrastructure and a broken strategic alliance. They'll have four years to try to fix all of that while the republicans blame them for everything they've inherited, and four years from that the American people will have largely forgotten how Trump and his minions trailed dog shit all through the house and they'll vote for the next right wing dick that's been groomed for the job - probably Pete Hegseth, or Don Jr, or Mark Wayne Mullin

by bdbdbdb

4/5/2026 at 4:35:14 PM

Neither Biden nor Harris were sensible candidates. Democrats could have easily beat Trump by running a more appealing/less polarizing candidate. Didn't even have to be both. Obama was polarizing but he was appealing and he won comfortably.

by SoftTalker

4/5/2026 at 6:24:25 PM

As a non-American I have always wondered about the criteria used by Americans to vote for their presidents.

Clinton and Obama had various defects, but at least both of them looked like presidents and talked like presidents.

On the other hand, both George Bush Junior and Trump (of course especially the latter), looked like clowns and talked like clowns.

I have never understood their appeal to the masses. I understand the discontent of those who have voted against the Democrat "elites", but the fact that anyone could look at Trump and believe that he is the right man for the job seems unbelievable, regardless of how inept were his opponents.

by adrian_b

4/5/2026 at 3:52:01 PM

> The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults

This rings as "make America great again", just with a different mythology standing-in for "again".

The US (or at least the US _state_) hasn't been in control by reasonable adults in over a century, or arguably ever.

What is finally becoming obvious is that this particular landmass is much too large to be under the control of a single state, and now that we have instant communications and ubiquitous cameras, even the arguments (laid out eg in the federalist papers) are no longer dispositive.

Calm and careful deprecation of the US as a state needs to top the new agenda.

by jMyles

4/5/2026 at 4:53:40 PM

> when finally back in control by reasonable adults

no one even knows who was really in control during the previous administration. quite a few idiotic and destructive policy changes were made during that administration too

by b0rtb0rt

4/5/2026 at 3:21:14 PM

> The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults

There is no way back, as there is no way back to the world before covid or before the 2008 global crisis. They say about Russian history "it was bad and then it got worse". Over and over, for hundreds of years. Vlad and Donnie are friends now.

by lifestyleguru

4/5/2026 at 3:15:04 PM

> The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults

Everyone reasonable seems to be holding their breath in anticipation of this eventually happening.

What if it doesn’t? What if all of this is a symptom of an underlying deterioration that extends deeper and beyond the current administration? It’s not Trump that made Americans A-OK with wars of aggression; Obama blew up as many kids using drones as Trump put into cages. What if the next few are the same, or worse? What do we do if this isn’t a temporary excursion but the new normal for the US and A?

by sneak

4/5/2026 at 3:41:34 PM

> What if it doesn’t? What if all of this is a symptom of an underlying deterioration that extends deeper and beyond the current administration? It’s not Trump that made Americans A-OK with wars of aggression; Obama blew up as many kids using drones as Trump put into cages. What if the next few are the same, or worse? What do we do if this isn’t a temporary excursion but the new normal for the US and A?

In the cold war, there was the "Evil East" and the "Good West", and this opposition forced at least some token "goodness" and a certain predictable behavior on both sides. It also forced both sides to have some firm principles they adhere to. Now the cold war is over, and while it did change more in the formerly East, the West, at least in some parts, also learned a few things. Among them that principles are negotiable, especially without a closed opposing bloc with the opposite principles. Doing business with China and Russia not only made people rich, it also moved Western culture more towards the Eastern ones, more than anyone would like to admit. Starting to see things from the Eastern perspective also induced the West to over time to not just understand the former enemy better and learn the "good stuff". We started to find things like strong autocratic leadership, compromises on human rights, ignorance of international laws and treaties, and wars of aggression and conquest more acceptable and even preferable.

So I don't think this is just temporary.

by thyristan

4/5/2026 at 3:52:41 PM

None of that is new or imported from the Asiatic Hordes. It's just more visible now.

by ted_bunny

4/5/2026 at 7:11:44 PM

Funny that you use those words; Trump seems to be champing at the bit to bring back the Asiatic Barred Zone

by selimthegrim

4/5/2026 at 3:49:24 PM

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. The US saw what Trump did during his first term, and four years later, after relative calm, they were like "nah, let's go back to Trump." That's the new normal. In fact, things will be worse during the next election, with even more of the media owned by unhinged billionaires intent on robbing as much as possible from normal people.

by InsideOutSanta

4/5/2026 at 3:54:44 PM

I don't think the electorate ran back into Trump's arms. Kamala was an egregiously poor candidate. He didn't win, she lost.

by ted_bunny

4/5/2026 at 3:42:10 PM

> Obama blew up as many kids using drones as Trump put into cages.

Obama didn't deliberately target kids using drones.

by nozzlegear