6 ms·

Iran doesn’t have to do anything, really. The Hormuz blockade is entirely on the moronic US, their feeble leader as well as their utterly corrupt and incompeten

Iran doesn’t have to do anything, really. The Hormuz blockade is entirely on the moronic US, their feeble leader as well as their utterly corrupt and incompetent politicians. A toxic mix of staggering arrogance, moral bankruptcy, a lack of strategic thinking, non-existing historical awareness and a desperate need to divert attention because of the Epstein files. Try debating a MAGA supporter. The stupidity is astounding.

UberFly 5mo ago
[flagged]
- spiderfarmer 5mo ago
  So why is Hormuz closed right now? And why wasn't it closed earlier this year?
  - aleph_minus_one 5mo ago
    > So why is Hormuz closed right now? And why wasn't it closed earlier this year? Because the USA and Israel attacked Iran.
- SturgeonsLaw 5mo ago
  I don't think this is trolling, that comment sums up outside perceptions of the USA that I've been hearing. Even the vitriolic tone is increasingly commonplace here, and we're a close US ally. Diesel prices tripled here at their recent peak because of the USA and Israel's pointless incursion in Iran and it's clear that Trump and his administration are both desperate to open the Strait, and also completely unable to do so. The world is getting pretty fed up with the idiocy, especially when it crosses the line from sad buffoonery to something that economically impacts us.
  - antonvs 5mo ago
    Plenty of people inside the US would agree with that comment as well. The incompetence, corruption, and stupidity is hard to overstate, and the mainstream media isn’t even trying.
burnerRhodov3 5mo ago
[dead]
TitaRusell 5mo ago
Remember when MAGA was about isolationism?
- spiderfarmer 5mo ago
  Where did they manufacture those hats?
  - tdeck 5mo ago
    I can see how this is confusing. The American foreign policy establishment's consensus definition of "isolationism" is something like "not invading or planning to invade other countries", it doesn't mean not trading with them. For Americans, not bombing something in Asia at least every couple of months is considered an isolationist tendency. And of course Central and South America don't even count, that's our "back yard" after all.
alsetmusic 5mo ago
> because of the Epstein files. > The stupidity is astounding. They "released the files" and handed out binders of Epstein documents to influencers. There was a ton of posting as though something monumental had happened. They were entirely comprised pre-existing publicly released information. That's how much the admin respects the intelligence of its base and that's how much its loudest supporters think things through.
- watwut 5mo ago
  > They were entirely comprised pre-existing publicly released information. This is not true. This is in fact straightforwardly false.
  - sillyfluke 5mo ago
    You and the parent may be talking about two different events. There was an initial release of "binders" to known rightwing influencers in a choreographed photo event. It was a predominantly bullshit release that pissed off the conspiratorial wing of MAGA and the Epstein Republicans (Massie et al). This happened in early 2025. The blowback from this event resulted in Congress passing the Epstein Transparency Act in Nov. 2025. The biggest dump of files came after this (tho congressmen are claiming most files are still unreleased) , which is what you might be referring to. But feel free to argue your point either way.
    - spiderfarmer 5mo ago
      Most have not been released and they didn’t even pay lip service to the ‘unredacted’ requirement. The truth will come out eventually. When the US finally realizes how cringe their awful leader is. Like when you finally realize how your friends thought about your partner after the breakup.
_DeadFred_ 5mo ago
You'd think the Epstein class would get along better with Iran, seeing as you can get 'temporary' marriages to underage girls in Iran. (google 'iran child bride' and 'iran temporary marriage').
- bannable 5mo ago
  Why would anyone post this comment?
  - _DeadFred_ 5mo ago
    To highlight that both sides are horrific when it comes to the topic being discussed and that both sides need leadership to be changed? Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?
    - bigyabai 5mo ago
      On the hierarchy of disagreement, attacking the character of either side is the lowest form of intelligent commentary you can make: https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html > Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be? If non-sequiturs are your best argument, then yes, you you have nothing to contribute by participating in good-faith speculation. Iranian child marriages do not reframe the "Tail that Wags the Dog" scenario in Washington. It's textbook whataboutism that you failed to elevate into meaningful commentary, making you look suspiciously disengaged.
      - _DeadFred_ 5mo ago
        I simply stated "You'd think these Epstein file guys would be on better terms with a country whose religious and political leaders sanctify that kind of behavior, not going to war with them.". Seems like a reasonable comment. They are all awful people. Paul Graham is saying you should not call people you are in a discussion with names. If I called OP names your link would fit. Calling out a horrific regime that murders their people and rents out children under the sanction of their religious leaders is not that. Calling the person you are in a discussion with names = bad. Call the subject of the discussion bad, when they legitimately are horrific, is normal discussion. Trump is awful. The Islamic Republic is awful. Both of those are normal and acceptable things to state in a discussion. You DeadFred are a <xyz negative statement>, not normal or acceptable. However Hacker New's ACTUAL guidelines state reguarding comments "Converse curiously; don't cross-examine." which your post seems to explicitly violate. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

UberFly 5mo ago

[flagged]

spiderfarmer 5mo ago
So why is Hormuz closed right now? And why wasn't it closed earlier this year?
- aleph_minus_one 5mo ago
  > So why is Hormuz closed right now? And why wasn't it closed earlier this year? Because the USA and Israel attacked Iran.
SturgeonsLaw 5mo ago
I don't think this is trolling, that comment sums up outside perceptions of the USA that I've been hearing. Even the vitriolic tone is increasingly commonplace here, and we're a close US ally. Diesel prices tripled here at their recent peak because of the USA and Israel's pointless incursion in Iran and it's clear that Trump and his administration are both desperate to open the Strait, and also completely unable to do so. The world is getting pretty fed up with the idiocy, especially when it crosses the line from sad buffoonery to something that economically impacts us.
- antonvs 5mo ago
  Plenty of people inside the US would agree with that comment as well. The incompetence, corruption, and stupidity is hard to overstate, and the mainstream media isn’t even trying.

burnerRhodov3 5mo ago

[dead]

TitaRusell 5mo ago

Remember when MAGA was about isolationism?

spiderfarmer 5mo ago
Where did they manufacture those hats?
- tdeck 5mo ago
  I can see how this is confusing. The American foreign policy establishment's consensus definition of "isolationism" is something like "not invading or planning to invade other countries", it doesn't mean not trading with them. For Americans, not bombing something in Asia at least every couple of months is considered an isolationist tendency. And of course Central and South America don't even count, that's our "back yard" after all.

alsetmusic 5mo ago

> because of the Epstein files. > The stupidity is astounding. They "released the files" and handed out binders of Epstein documents to influencers. There was a ton of posting as though something monumental had happened. They were entirely comprised pre-existing publicly released information. That's how much the admin respects the intelligence of its base and that's how much its loudest supporters think things through.

watwut 5mo ago
> They were entirely comprised pre-existing publicly released information. This is not true. This is in fact straightforwardly false.
- sillyfluke 5mo ago
  You and the parent may be talking about two different events. There was an initial release of "binders" to known rightwing influencers in a choreographed photo event. It was a predominantly bullshit release that pissed off the conspiratorial wing of MAGA and the Epstein Republicans (Massie et al). This happened in early 2025. The blowback from this event resulted in Congress passing the Epstein Transparency Act in Nov. 2025. The biggest dump of files came after this (tho congressmen are claiming most files are still unreleased) , which is what you might be referring to. But feel free to argue your point either way.
  - spiderfarmer 5mo ago
    Most have not been released and they didn’t even pay lip service to the ‘unredacted’ requirement. The truth will come out eventually. When the US finally realizes how cringe their awful leader is. Like when you finally realize how your friends thought about your partner after the breakup.

_DeadFred_ 5mo ago

You'd think the Epstein class would get along better with Iran, seeing as you can get 'temporary' marriages to underage girls in Iran. (google 'iran child bride' and 'iran temporary marriage').

bannable 5mo ago
Why would anyone post this comment?
- _DeadFred_ 5mo ago
  To highlight that both sides are horrific when it comes to the topic being discussed and that both sides need leadership to be changed? Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?
  - bigyabai 5mo ago
    On the hierarchy of disagreement, attacking the character of either side is the lowest form of intelligent commentary you can make: https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html > Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be? If non-sequiturs are your best argument, then yes, you you have nothing to contribute by participating in good-faith speculation. Iranian child marriages do not reframe the "Tail that Wags the Dog" scenario in Washington. It's textbook whataboutism that you failed to elevate into meaningful commentary, making you look suspiciously disengaged.
    - _DeadFred_ 5mo ago
      I simply stated "You'd think these Epstein file guys would be on better terms with a country whose religious and political leaders sanctify that kind of behavior, not going to war with them.". Seems like a reasonable comment. They are all awful people. Paul Graham is saying you should not call people you are in a discussion with names. If I called OP names your link would fit. Calling out a horrific regime that murders their people and rents out children under the sanction of their religious leaders is not that. Calling the person you are in a discussion with names = bad. Call the subject of the discussion bad, when they legitimately are horrific, is normal discussion. Trump is awful. The Islamic Republic is awful. Both of those are normal and acceptable things to state in a discussion. You DeadFred are a <xyz negative statement>, not normal or acceptable. However Hacker New's ACTUAL guidelines state reguarding comments "Converse curiously; don't cross-examine." which your post seems to explicitly violate. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html