"I always knew the date," the president said in a brief phone interview. "Because I know everything. I know everything. I know everything. "I gave them 60 days and they didn't meet it," Trump went on. "Today's 61, you know. Today's day 61."

Asked whether Netanyahu provided him with intelligence showing the progress of Iran's nuclear program and whether the 60-day window was mutually agreed, Trump said, "I know what's going on. Someone informed me of it."

Exclusive | Trump tells Post 'I always knew the date' for Israel attack on Iran

Ukraine war still ongoing with no end in sight, Russia rejects all of Trump's proposals.

Gaza ceasefire lasts less than a month, Israel may now be fighting a war on two fronts.

Trump's foreign policy is going brilliantly, I was told no more wars under him.

They’re still mad that their great-great-great grandparents got their asses kicked in a war they started over their right to keep human chattel. 

Do you guys ever take an objective look at yourselves, how you look and how you sound?

I'm not expecting most people these days to know enough US history to see how ridiculous your summary of the Civil War was, but have someone in your family who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you review your posts and offer constructive criticism once and a while.

How I would long to have an intelligent discussion with your movement about the pros and cons of this decade's US leadership, but you're too busy fantasizing that anyone who didn't drink blue Kool-Aid is chasing their sister while you fight for the ability to marry your dog!

I am from Europe. What was the American civil war about?

Oh it was 100% about slavery but the apologists keep saying it's about 'State's Rights'....But they always break down when someone asks 'state rights to do what?'

Kinda like how the abortion thing was about 'states rights' and now it's just a convenient way to wrest autonomy from women. Yeah, it's always about the right to be bigots but they lack the self awareness to see it.

No one is objective in the first place. We all have biases. 

It's also my personal subjective belief that the people who think of themselves as "being the objective ones" tend to be less objective. Because they tend to be certain that they're correct about everything, whereas other people tend to have enough uncertainty that they're more willing to listen to people that are more knowledgeable about a subject. 

And what exactly do you think the cause of the Civil War was? 

The "State's rights" claim is problematic for a lot of reasons. The states wrote secession letters, and specifically mentioned slavery as the big issue. You can certainly argue that other factors might have contributed, but seeing as the very people who seceded literally went into great detail about slavery being such a big issue for them, it feels dishonest to argue that you must actually know what they were fighting for in the first place. 

I don't even think people generally care that much about state's rights in the first place. It's just a convenient stopping spot against people that disagree with you. Right now, X issue doesn't have enough support for it to happen nationally, but we can have in these particular states until it's popular enough. Abortion was claimed to be a state's rights issue, but plenty of politicians are overriding what their own people voted for, and plenty of them are suddenly emboldened enough to start talking about a nationwide ban. 

To have an intelligent discussion with someone, you'd need to be able to respond to some of their rebuttals. Which you haven't ever done here. 

3 people responded to your first overly simple post about how you think it's absurd that dictators would cut funding (even though largely the funding was cut for things that help other people.) And you didn't even bother to address a single one of them. 

In defense of the person you’re responding to: “3 people responded…you didn’t even bother to address a single one” sounds like the forum dog-pilled and the user (rationally) concluded that it wasn’t worth the energy to respond. I feel like there should be some moderation that prevents such aggressive ganging, as it only leads to an echo chamber.

I can’t even speak freely of my stances here b/c — as I have learned three times — I’ll be crucified by like twenty people lol.

If 3 responses is your definition of getting dogpiled, then I would say you're using the wrong websites. 

Pretty much the whole point of a public forum, is to get lots of different perspectives. I can post a thread and expect to get 50 posts from 40 different people. The big benefit of this is that you aren't relying on one persons perspective and knowledge base.  

If I write a post about politics and make some errors, there's lots of people that can correct me. 

I've posted on Reddit, Facebook, ResetEra, Neogaf, YouTube. Small forums and big. Even on some of the smaller ones, if I only got 3 responses I'd feel like I was being ignored. 

Err, I'm going to be blunt but that is called disagreement, it happens in debate, if a user can't handle it then they shouldn't bother trying to debate in the first place. We're not going to start moderating users for disagreeing with other users. If you have an unpopular opinion then naturally a few people are going to disagree with you and damn, 3 people isn't even that many at all, Lol.

Are users meant to elect someone to speak on behalf of the collective opinion? How do they organise that? How do we know what other peoples opinions are before they post? Lol. Are we as Moderators meant to say "Ah, one person has responded to this user in disagreement, therefore nobody else is allowed to respond to this user". Even when people have similar disagreements, they post different perspectives still and things that other people have not thought of. I know there's a lot of times where I've disagreed with someone and posted my opinion but another user has posted a far better detailed disagreement rebuttal than I did.

Fair enough if a dog-pile on a specific user is dragging a thread off-topic but...That's not the case here. I think it's a far bigger issue when a user pops into this thread every few months with a hot-take or argument bait, only to immediately vanish and not respond to anyone's responses, thus wasting everyone's time, which is a common trend with fans of a certain politician who just want to drop a grenade and run.

I don't see why we should do anything about you having an unpopular opinion.