That's not what I would call pulling out of the nuclear deal and essentially trying to force them to capitulate. What is/was he going to do in the event that Iran decided to go for the breakout? And if he is truly going to try to continue to "actively" avoid going to war with Iran, why should they take any credence in his threats?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWgAOFM3HN0

It's pretty much that simple.

I see no evidence that any kind of enforcement can stop most of it.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/21/1158300583/fentanyl-smuggling-border-mexico-overdose-drug-war

Of what, exactly? What is the "objective" that is currently not being met?

It's interesting how many republicans and Trump supporters apparently have problems with going to war with Russia, but not Iran. Yes, the former will probably be worse, but Iran has a long history of hurting the U.S. in creative ways. It doesn't seem prudent to keep backing them into a corner, sometimes in very counterproductive ways. And trying to deal with that AND the Ukrainian conflict at the same time is just begging to set the stage for severe economic turbulence.

It's remarkable, reading some of those Trump supporter Twitter threads in the last few days. The amount of delusion they are under.

And some of them are even actively flirting with a literal call to arms over this. All I can say is that someone with such a tenuous grip on reality is going to fare poorly in combat, even before considering anything else.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-byrd-eulogy-biden-kkk-grand/fact-checkrobert-byrdeulogized-by-joe-bidenat-funeralwas-notkkkgrandwizard-idUSKBN26S2EE

You're not helping your case that I should believe a word you say.

Also the previous pope was in the Hitler Youth. Does that mean I should view the Catholic Church as an extension of far right extremism?

You would hardly be the first person I've met who is clueless about a city they live in or near. I hear it all the time about New York, which has also eliminated cash bail. It's generally fine, and nothing that can't be traced to the general rise in crime and such since the pandemic, which has happened nationwide, pretty indiscriminate regarding cash bail policies. I and many people I know have been to Chicago, including recently. No problems.

And if it was really that bad, I would have expected more of a republican response in the recent midterms for Illinois. But they appear to have done about as bad as could have been expected. But don't worry, I will let you run your mouth about the "blue sheeple" and all that ****ing BS you have already spouted.

Something that has been probably been on the backburner in terms of news, given Ukraine and the ongoing protests in Iran, has been the question of Iran's nuclear program.

Since Trump unilaterally terminated US participation in 2018, and especially after it became clear that the EU et al couldn't provide a sanctions workaround, Iran has been steadily disengaging from the deal, enriching more uranium to be a higher level than ever before, locking out access for IAEA inspectors, etc.

Despite Biden campaigning on re-entering the deal, it seems the window for that has closed, what with the new hardline president, Iran's military support for the Russian side in Ukraine, and the aforementioned protests that are continuing apace.

None of this however seems to be slowing down Iran's progress on its program. And although no one can credibly claim that Iran already has nukes or has definitively decided to build them, it is in pole position to do so should it choose.

Which leaves the problem as follows: what do we do if they go for the breakout? So far, sanctions across multiple administrations have hardly slowed it down, and if the experiences in places like North Korea hold any lessons, they most certainly will not stop them. The only other alternatives are to either semi tolerate Iran having them (a la North Korea), or strike their facilities and capabilities (which are hardly guaranteed to succeed anyway).

But who would strike Iran if it comes to that? Israel, possibly with US support? What if there is massive retaliation by Iran, something that no one is able to contain? Iran has already proven to have the ability to strike far and wide across the region when it chooses, and any direct strike on their nation, especially if it is by Israel, would almost certainly invoke such a response. And what if the strikes are ultimately unsuccessful, either through failing to completely destroy their program, or leaving them with enough to work with that they could rebuild? Do we go for multiple strikes, continuously, while risking constant Iranian retaliation? Remember, Iranian influence and proxies cut a long continuous "crescent" throughout the Middle East, stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. It has some of the largest oil producers well within its striking distance, and it has the ability to blockade or seriously bottleneck the crucial Strait of Hormuz should it choose to do so. And if so, we could be looking at not just human or material losses, but also brutal economic repercussions with massive oil spikes, just as the economic picture remains precarious at best, and we are already struggling to fill the void left by less Russian oil.

Still ready? Does anyone see a less violent way forward?

That doesn't explain why some of the reddest states have some of the highest violent crime rates. And why crime has increased nationwide regardless of bail policies since the pandemic. Seems to be something else going on.

Also:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/crains-forum-safer-chicago/chicago-violence-problem-debate-safety-inequality