I'm not so sure it is even in Putler's interests to be doing this. I assume he wants to ratchet up exposure to regime propaganda and deny the ability to use technology to organize opposition to his regime.

Yet the immediate impact of widely unpopular bans coinciding with embarrassing war related losses, exhaustion and economic decline will only trigger the politicization of a population that will increasingly cut against him.

This is an irrelevant sidecar not responsive to your prior assertions. Nobody including public statements by the Iranians themselves is refuting the fact they enriched beyond the ~4% limit of the JCPOA *after* USA violated the terms of the agreement by pulling out and reimposing nuclear related sanctions.

In response to my statement: "The admissions you are referring to occurred some four years after the US bailed."

You stated:

"But, by most accounts, Iran never stopped enriching uranium. For some of us that would seem to indicate the sanctions were not working well."

"The enforcement mechanisms were subverted and ignored by Iran right along. They kept throwing the investigators and monitors out of the country. You could at least be serious and deal with the facts please"

Now you are changing the subject. Do you have specific credible evidence Iran violated the JCPOA prior to the US violating it or don't you?

This article does not mention anything about Iran having violated the terms of JCPOA prior to Trump's violation of the agreement.

What it does say contradicts your narrative.

"The IAEA certified in early 2016 that Iran had met its preliminary pledges; and the United States, EU, and United Nations responded by repealing or suspending their sanctions. "

This says literally nothing about Iranian JCPOA violations.

Ditto here, nothing responsive to your claims.

More irrelevant gish gallop. What an embarrassment.

I agree.

Decoding Trump is an exercise in futility. He is a pathological liar and his statements are often not even self-consistent.

This is factually incoherent nonsense. The "blood-thirsty dictator" was "installed" (e.g. inherited the throne) in 1941 during WWII while Iran was occupied by the British and the Soviets. He came to power when his father abdicated and fled.

The "blood-thirsty dictator" didn't murder thousands of people every year or anything remotely like it. Over the entirety of the "blood-thirsty dictator"'s reign figures are in the low hundreds in total for the political/dissident deaths conducted by his forces.

The non-proliferation issues are explicitly a double standard for obvious reasons. The purpose is limiting proliferation of nuclear weapons into more hands not the enrichment itself. Limiting enrichment amongst those without nukes is a means to that end.

No such authority exists. These actions were illegal and halted by the courts. Everyone the US sent to CECOT was returned.

The US has a dictator wannabee as a president.

Are you being serious? There is no moral right for intervention in response to the intentional massacre of over 30k injuring over 300k civilians over the course of two days? Murdering injured protestors in hospitals, murdering and raping doctors and nurses for treating them? No moral right to stop barbaric repressions of human beings? Sigheh to 9 year old girls all totally normal.

Of course all the dark age nonsense is by no means limited to the borders of Iran. Iran is the worlds leading state sponsor of terror destabilizing the entire region.

The source of the regimes "right" to massacre civilians is the same as an external powers "right" to intervene. FAFO.

Over the last few weeks I've seen a number of RFJ wanted fliers with millions of dollars in reward money produced by the US state department. They have a phone number and a tor address and explicitly target Mojtaba and the IRGC org chart.

AI slop articles that get summarized into yet more AI slop. I doubt many humans read this stuff.

It doesn't affect text so ctrl F still works. The rest can be mitigated by supplying element sizes in the HTML.

If by simple, you mean simplistic, then yeah. What you're forgetting is that every time a bomb kills someone's mother, father, brother, sister, wife, son, or daughter, another America hater is born. So there's likely to be an endless supply of irrational leaders, so long as they are put into power by someone bombing the previous leader along with random military targets.

The only regime changes that are ever really positive long-term are regime changes led by the people of a country against their leaders. All other regime changes are statistically more likely to make things worse than better.

Let me restate that. Most of what makes neighborhood streets dangerous is vehicles and pedestrians using the same space at similar times.

Who has priority is largely uninteresting, because ultimately if a car hits you, you're still probably dead whether you had the right of way or not.

Ostensibly, sure, if you got rid of all the cars, streets would be safer for pedestrians, but they would also be a huge waste of space, because pedestrians don't need huge roads to walk. Roads exist principally for cars. The fact that pedestrians have to cross them is just an unfortunate design constraint that's hard to avoid cheaply, and giving pedestrians priority is mostly just feel-good policymaking that doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems.

The only truly safe way to share the space is to ensure that pedestrians aren't in the road when cars are. The best approach, at least in cities, is second-floor walkways, so that pedestrians and cars are never vertically at the same traffic layer. A slightly less optimal, but still reasonable approach is to give pedestrians a separate walk cycle in which the entire intersection is theirs. Pedestrians have priority during that cycle, and cars have priority the rest of the time, and as long as everyone follows the rules, nobody gets hurt.

But none of those solutions work for neighborhood streets, which is why the presence of pedestrians on neighborhood streets without sidewalks and proper traffic control for pedestrians results in the roads being inherently more dangerous than other streets.

Amazon will replace workers with robots the second it is feasible. This won't do anything to change that.

Is there any risk of being caught in the lie? Here it's possible that your employer will get at least a sense of your previous salary because they need to handle income taxes for that year.

I do it anyway and it's never backfired, but I suppose in theory...

What is the point of repeating the same empty rhetoric? No specific claims, no credible citations and now a lame attempt to shift burden of proof. Where are those facts you spoke of earlier?

It is illegal* to ask if candidates are married.

It is illegal* to ask if candidates have children.

It is illegal* to ask if candidates live with their parents.

* In America.