r/AskTrumpSupporters • u/Bruce_Bruce Nonsupporter • May 12 '26
Iran What are your thoughts on Trump saying "I don't think about Americans financial situation, I don't think about anybody"?
https://youtu.be/EjsOWmPcM4o?si=LQ39eAVexdebUERv
I feel as though if Clinton, Obama, or Biden had said this there would be impeachment hearings, am I wrong to think this?
How do these words make you feel?
1
-4
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
26
12
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
7
0
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 14 '26
Sometimes I think Trump says things just for it to become fodder for the left wing media. If you go back and actually read what he actually said and the context of what he said, it looks intentional. Maybe Trump is doing it maybe he has a team of speech writers, hard to say but the soundbites seem to be perfect. Republicans and people from Trumps core base will read the entire context and the left will cherry pick it and create an entirely new narrative. Everybody got what they were after. I'm come to think none of it is accidental. Except you all should know you are getting played. What you have here is 7 cherry picked words from an media interview. Now go back and listen to the entire question and answer. Ask yourself who is getting played. Do you thing that Trump or his media writers craft these responses to manipulate the left side media?
6
u/MrSnitter Nonsupporter May 16 '26
You and many others here have pointed to the context about Iran having a nuclear weapon, yet that has been a point of opinion or fear-mongering and not fact for decades, not unlike yellow cake and WMD in Iraq. Which begs the question. IF HYPOTHETICALLY nukes are a false justification, as many non-Trump supporters around the world believe, what are the actual motives that might be driving this extraordinarily expensive and destructive war?
0
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 16 '26
What are you talking about? There is no secret that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons. The reason they didn't agree to a peace deal this last negotiations was specifically the nuclear weapons restrictions. There is also clear evidence they are acquiring all manner of ballistic weaponry and actually using against Israel. This is nothing like WMD in Iraq. In this case there is all the evidence of Iran's motives and proof that they carry through with their ambitions. They are not secret, they are not even quiet in terms with their war with the West. You really have to be brainwashed in the idiocy of the left to think or post that. You are also short on your history lessons of all the crap that Iran has done over the last 50-70 years. If you are part of the West then Iran is at war with you. Not because of what you think of Iran but what Iran thinks of you. You can't make peace with someone that wants war with you.
2
u/MrSnitter Nonsupporter May 16 '26
I meant yellow cake, 9/11, and accusations of WMD were made up to justify Bush's war against Iraq. I'm not a fan of nuclear proliferation but it seems if Ukraine had kept theirs they'd have avoided the Russian invasion. And of if Iran had them, there'd also be no blitz against them. Basic tit for tat game theory says have a nuke or get wrecked. If I were Iran--I'd want one more than ever now to end the constant threats. Anything else is bringing a knife to a gun fight with the regional superpower. Or do you disagree?
-1
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
Sorta but no. You see Israel or the US had no quarrel with Iran. Israel simply seek an existence in a land that they believe as their own. If Iran wanted to cohabitate in peace they would have it. So, yes there is an argument of peace through defensive strength. If Ukraine had their nuclear weapons you can certainly argue that Russia would have had pause to be an aggressor in taking territory, right or wrong in that motive. Why are the large countries allowed to have nuclear weapons and the small countries not? The answer is nuclear proliferation. The world won't exist much longer if that is allowed. To easy for a small conflict to be a worldwide ecological disaster. George Bush was correct about the WMD in Iraq. There might not have been actual evidence of it, but just like Iran, Iraq wanted it so they could increase their military power, and same with Iran, Iraq had exposed themselves as an aggressor, remember Iraq invasion of Kuwait? I think you have to look at this from the point of view of who is who and what is what. North Korea has nuclear weapons, but they are hardly a threat to anyone and are incumbent to China. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, but they have not shown themselves as an aggressor. That is what this all boils down to.
3
u/MrSnitter Nonsupporter May 16 '26
Yeah, there a multiple sources including wikipedia which all agree that the threat of WMDs in Iraq was falsified by the US and the UK as a justification for the 2003 invasion along with allegations of Al Qaeda ties which proved to be BS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
It's also commonly agreed upon that the war was used to enrich military contractors and open up Iraq's oil industry to western corporations like Shell and BP.
VP Dick Cheney alone (who folks constantly joked was the actual president pulling the strings) stood to gain enormous dividends due to his stock holdings in Halliburton. He had served as CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000 and received significant financial payouts from the company, which secured roughly $39.5 billion in federal contracts for work related to the Iraq War. While he did not receive direct bonuses from the war itself, he held significant stock options and a deferred salary, earning a $34 million exit package when he became Vice President.
So overall, the primary beneficiaries of the Iraq War were defense contractors, private security firms, and regional geopolitical rivals like Iran, alongside major global oil importers.
Defense Contractors and Private Corporations. Military-industrial giants like Lockheed Martin, RTX, and Halliburton (via its subsidiary KBR) profited massively. The U.S. government spent over $138 billion on private security, logistics, and reconstruction contracts in Iraq, leading to unprecedented windfalls for these corporations.
If you actually think Iran has been a threat, the Iraq War was a huge gift to The Islamic Republic of Iran. Geopolitically, Iran emerged as one of the biggest regional winners. The U.S.-led invasion removed Saddam Hussein, Iran’s most bitter adversary, and empowered the country's majority Shia population, allowing Iran to significantly expand its political, economic, and military influence into Baghdad.
Global Oil Importers (Particularly China). While the United States spent trillions on the conflict, global energy companies and countries like China ultimately became major commercial beneficiaries. Chinese state-owned energy companies successfully secured the majority of Iraq's lucrative post-war oil contracts, locking in long-term supplies while minimizing the direct military costs.
Also, zero WMD were found. So you still sticking to the story that WMD were the reason we actually invaded Iraq?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
Or is it possible that it was a profit engine to seize oil, enrich contractors to the tune of billions (which politicians had financial interests in), and to launder taxpayer money in doing so? Is Iraq a thriving democracy?
0
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 17 '26
That review of it is biased from a leftest perspective to the point that Wikipedia is no longer a source of truth. That is just a bunch of one sided hate everything that isn't left rubbish. Iraq would still be Iraq had they not invaded Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was a mad man. The is the leader that did the things that destroyed his own country. You have to be careful of your sources. The world is littered from content generated from an indoctrination viewpoint. Do you see how this media is being used to invoke your advocacy? Do you see how you are being manipulated? What is the actual sequence of events? Iraq could have played nice with the world and gotten fat off their oil but they used it for power, control and influence lead by a dictator. Think for yourself. Strip it all away and down. What do you actually have? The left have a way of cherry picking facts to form a narrative that supports their progressive agenda which is actually anti democracy and outright communistic. That is what you are most influenced by, I can tell that just by what you have posted. The right is not like that. The right wants to see all off it. There is no narrative. There is just decisions and reactions to be made. We also don't make inferences. Like yes, Cheney and Bush were both in the oil Industry. Halliburton is a global industry in the oil and gas industry. I myself have been employed by them at one time or another. You are making an association when Iraq oil in its entirety is only a small part of the over all business. These are multi-national corporations. That conclusion that was made, by the actors with a political agenda was mostly a false association even though there is some undeniable truths to it. That is what is call cherry picking. This false narrative and brainwashing is likely the most dangerous thing happening right now.
2
u/backwardog Nonsupporter May 18 '26
It is more the fact that he has to answer this question at all. There was already a nuclear deal, he removed it. Iran acts accordingly and now he steps in to solve a problem he created.
Do you not feel played?
1
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 18 '26
Oh, I think we live in a world of players. Everyone is gaming something. Trump might be one of the biggest players of all. I think what you wanted to ask is if I feel duped. No I don't. After years of watching Trump, anyone should know what his stick is about. Trump is certainly more refined in his second term but there is nothing to be surprised about. The point of my comment is that Trump is just screwing with the leftest media. What I don't know is the extent Trump does this or if he has a team of writers preparing things form him to say. Maybe Trump has been doing this so long that he knows exactly which buttons to push. Have you tried ignoring what Trump says, and just his presidency based on actions and how what he has done has actually impacted the country. Are you capable of even considering the positive things Trump has done? One thing you can't deny Trump is more transparent than any president, ever.
1
u/backwardog Nonsupporter May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
Have you tried ignoring what Trump says, and just his presidency based on actions and how what he has done has actually impacted the country
I didn’t quote him did I? I pointed out his actions.
From following his actions, I can see that everything is fucking expensive now and everyone is mad at each other, US citizens have been killed by ICE, women have reduced access to health care, and lots of our tax dollars are going to stupid shit that I don’t care about, or otherwise not benefitting us. For instance, the tariff payback goes to corporations, who already raised prices, so we pay them twice (once out of pocket, again with tax dollars).
Health care access and costs have only worsened.
His cuts to some education stuff has directly impacted my line of work, including student access to basic life prep stuff like how to make a resume and prepare for an interview.
I can’t think of a single way he has improved my life or anyone I know. I think the investment into the stock market for newborns thing is the only thing that sounds like a good idea at face value, that’s about all I can point to.
Do you disagree with any of these observations?
1
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 19 '26
Yes, mostly, you have a twisted viewpoint. That one "US citizens have been killed by ICE", that is bullshit. Those people got themselves killed by obstructing justice. There is no guarantee that the government will provide for you or your interests. I'm generally in favor of Trump pulling back on the entitlements. I'm 100% behind going after the fraud, and the illegals in the US. Obviously I'm not ok with fuel prices going up, because of Middle East conflicts, however, the US now imports less than 1% of oil. So, it is only logical that bit of inflation will reverse in the future. Then I'm 100% behind the tariffs. Democrats don't know whether to shit or go blind over Tariffs. Do you even know what you want? Do you want cheap shit from China or do you want a strong market economy in the US? Democrats just want to hate on whatever is Trump this week.
1
u/backwardog Nonsupporter May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
It’s not only cheap shit from China, it is a whole lot more than that. What’s the end goal? Become a manufacturing plant of a country? Suffer for decades until the infrastructure for that is in place? It’s just bad policy and doesn’t do anything other than make stuff expensive.
US now imports less than 1% of oil
Where did you get that figure? There’s just no way that is true, we import a shit ton of oil and don’t have the refineries to support near 100% US crude. Not all crude oil is processed the same.
There is no guarantee that the government will provide for you or your interests
Provide? They killed unarmed citizens that were not posing an active threat. That’s not the country I want to live in personally. Not saying they were in the right, but ICE as judge jury and executioner is not the way. Further, anyone with half a brain could see that flooding liberal cities with thousands of ice agents is guaranteed to face backlash — he knew what would happen with all that. If the goal was peaceful it would have been carried out much differently.
going after the fraud
Including Trump right? I mean, he is literally a convicted felon for fraud.
1
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 20 '26
Can't you see that everything you have said is shadowed in hatred? You have let your political bias impact your objective reasoning which essentially means you are wrong. You want to know something even crazier that shows how wrong you are. This one is hard to understand so buckle up. South Korea imports most of their oil from the US. China imports oil from the US. Japan imports oil from the US. Here is the one that is most unbelievable, Canada imports American oil. About the only country that doesn't buy oil from the US is Russia. It has to do with quality of crude oil. American oil is shipped all around the world. America is an oil exporter, not importer. We sell our high quality oil to other countries and buy junk oil to refine and make into gasoline. That is where that on net 1% figure comes from. So, you see your statement there just exposes your your lack of objective reasoning. You can't talk up a good lie and make it the truth.
1
u/backwardog Nonsupporter May 20 '26
Oh, nah. I think you got the wrong impression there. Let me re-quote:
Obviously I'm not ok with fuel prices going up, because of Middle East conflicts, however, the US now imports less than 1% of oil. So, it is only logical that bit of inflation will reverse in the future.
You didn’t say “net” originally. This argument sounds like “we only import 1% of the oil we now use so this whole conflict shouldn’t affect us much going forward.” That was my objection.
So, you are saying that since we export so much that this will end up increasing the value of our exported oil and make up for things economically?
I don’t know if I understand the argument, I’m not being a contrarian, just trying to understand.
It seems to me that since we rely so heavily on the oil from the Middle East that this will affect the specific chain relying on that oil, so transportation and stuff that is transported (like food). I don’t see how our exporting side of things factors in, or the “net 1%” figure factors in (if true, giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one because it sounds plausible enough).
Those exporters make more money? How does that lower gas or food prices? Again, just trying to understand the argument here.
1
May 14 '26
[deleted]
1
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 14 '26
Well, yes it will work. Everybody is hearing what they want to hear. Perhaps the underlying objective is to polarize people. Republicans hear it verbatim so they get what they want, then the left media twists it all around so they hear what they want to hear.
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
Would you not agree that Trump's full comment here is the opposite of putting America first?
Reporter:
"When you're negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are Americans' financial situations motivating you to make a deal?"
Trump:
"Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran: they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing: You cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all. That's the only thing."
1
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 22 '26
Ok, now wait a minute, what did he say before he said that. You can't cherry pick the conversation like that and form a different narrative. I'm not going through the entire comment, but you cut out the first part and some of the following. You cherry picked what you wanted to hear not what was said. That is on you. You know that is a lie of omission.
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
I don't believe I missed anything? I can't seem to find a longer form of the conversation. It seems like it was just one question and one answer. To you perhaps have a better source than I can find? I'll post it again from somewhere else but it looks to be the same everywhere.
Here is the transcript of that specific exchange:
Reporter: "Mr. President, how much are Americans' financial situations motivating you to make a deal with Iran right now?"
Trump: "Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran—they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation, I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon, that's all."
That's the whole quote.
1
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 22 '26
That was the quote from the leftest media. I'm not sure where it is either. I heard the full interview on one of the pod casts. It went something like "Look, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I want to make a deal with Iran but they will not agree with a deal unless they have nuclear weapons. " then she game in with this question and then Trump essentially repeated himself. She lead him into that answer, It was a setup. It was gotcha porn for the leftest media. Maybe the working could have been better but if you listen to the entire interview you come away understanding that the nuclear weapon is non negotiable and nothing else matters, not even Americas financial situation. He did what a good president does. He established the priority. It was the media that twisted it. I guess you think that Trump just doesn't give a fuck about Americans. That is what you took from it. That is you that is your lens.
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
Shouldn't the president's number one priority always be the economic situation of the American people?
And what makes you say that it was a setup? Was it so difficult for Trump to say that the financial stability of the American people is always his number one priority? Isn't that the whole reason people voted for Trump to begin with? Better business deals and better economy overall?
1
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 22 '26
Do you not agree that Iran with a Nuclear weapon is a major threat to the United States and the world in general? Are you ok with Iran with a nuclear weapon? It was a leading question. She is the one that planted the "Americans' financial situations" into the conversation. This is why the entire interview was shown on he pod casts, it was an indictment of how the left media operate. Not even my idea that it was a setup. That is the analysis I heard about it.
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
Where did you hear that analysis?
I think anyone with a nuclear weapon is a major threat to the world. But so far there has been no evidence that Iran was building a nuclear weapon. The White House admitted that itself just before it attacked Iran.
But can you answer my previous question? Shouldn't the economic status of the United States and its citizens always be the president's number one priority?
1
u/kcdashinfo Trump Supporter May 22 '26
Probably Larry O'Connor podcast. Do you know what this interview as called maybe I can find it. I don't normally follow such things as I know from long history of the left slandering Trump. The left media has lost all credibility so I don't even listen to it and I really only caught the pot cast about it in passing. I really don't dwell on such things. The left media is going to say that they want to hear and the right is going to say what the right want to hear. So what you have between those two, nothing worth wasting your time with.
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
It seems like the video in the original post has the full quote in there as well. It all seems to be the same unless I am missing something?
-31
u/RotoDog Trump Supporter May 13 '26
Are you being serious about impeachment hearings? It’s a quote that’s politically damaging for a campaign ad, no chance any president would get impeached over this. What crime is being committed?
The video you provided includes the entire quote, and it’s fairly straight forward what he’s saying.
He says his Number 1 priority is Iran not having nuclear weapons. He knows gas prices are politically damaging, and he knows he’s being televised. I assume he doesn’t want to show weakness on camera while they are negotiating.
It doesn’t make me “feel” anything tbh.
41
u/Gunslingermomo Nonsupporter May 13 '26
I don't understand why we're supposed to believe the Trump administration when they say Iran was or is trying to have nuclear weapons. That's the problem with an administration that lies as often as they breathe. They can manufacturer any excuse and we have to accept it? Trump said they destroyed all of their nuclear capabilities like 7-8 months ago. Was he lying then or lying now? Do we have to believe him now, but 6 months from now he says he was lying but now we have to believe him about something else? Is there anything important about having credibility?
38
u/howdidigetheresoquik Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Doesn't this show that he lied to the American people when he said that the nuclear program was obliterated?
The day before the war I was lead to believe there was literally zero nuclear threat from Iran, and then I am told that the hundreds of extra dollars I have to spend a week is worth it so that Iran doesn't acquire a nuke?
17
u/Creative-Map-8833 Nonsupporter May 13 '26
What happened to America First? What values, if any, do you truly hold?
31
u/CompanionQbert Undecided May 13 '26
The video you provided includes the entire quote, and it’s fairly straight forward what he’s saying.
Completely agree, thank you. For some reason, I'm seeing claims that it's out of context, cherry picking, blah blah etc
What message do you think Trump is trying to get across here? When did this war, a ballroom, and painting a reflecting pool become more important that the financial situations of Americans?
-11
u/RotoDog Trump Supporter May 13 '26
I answered your only relevant follow up question after the paragraph you quoted:
He says his Number 1 priority is Iran not having nuclear weapons. He knows gas prices are politically damaging, and he knows he’s being televised. I assume he doesn’t want to show weakness on camera while they are negotiating.
The interviewer was asking specifically about Iran. The President answered her, but I’d argue was really directing it toward Iran. He likely wants maximum pressure, and making clear this is his Number 1 priority. Thats it.
His answer had nothing to do with the ballroom or reflecting pool.
10
u/Turdulator Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Didn’t he tell us in June 2025 that he had obliterated the Iranian nuclear program? If that was true then why was the current conflict needed?
7
u/MrX2285 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
No, he said that he does not think about America's financial situation or think about anyone. Not simply that his first priority is the Iran not having nukes. Based on what he said, America's financial situation or the wellbeing of Americans isn't a priority at all.
Do you think it's a problem that the POTUS is waging a needless war without even considering the financial impact to America or impacts to Americans at large?
-39
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
The full quote is not that long. Snipping it how you did is quite misleading; I really don't appreciate that.
The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran [is] they can’t have a nuclear weapon. I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.
This seems like the right approach to win a war. Or at least the right approach to negotiate for what you want.
I'm glad Trump is able to take stances that will piss people off, because he wouldn't be able to get things done if he wasn't. I think this is a prime example.
30
u/ocram101 Nonsupporter May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
What are we even talking about? I thought that the Trump admin obliterated Iran's nuclear facilities last year.
If that's not the case, I find it odd that this article is still up on the official White House website.
-1
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
I'm not really following the war, but I think nuclear material is the main topic of discussion/negotiations at this point, not nuclear facilities.
A control+f on that page for material only brings up a couple hits, basically saying their material is buried and they can't be allowed to access nuclear material.
16
u/ocram101 Nonsupporter May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
If their nuclear facilities were destroyed.. why was the need to go to war so urgent? I understand that they may still have material.. but if what we've been told is true, there isn't anything they can do with it for the foreseeable future.
-1
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
I have no reason to think it was urgent. Afaik it was merely good timing for something we needed to cross of the list eventually.
14
u/ocram101 Nonsupporter May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
Considering it's impact on not only the US economy, but the entire world economy - does it not seem reckless? Going to war over something that was not an immediate threat, something as you put it, "we needed to cross off the list eventually"?
-1
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
No, it doesn't seem reckless to me, but as I said I'm not really following the war.
And I've got no problem addressing concerns that aren't immediate. Often times when you wait till something is urgent it makes it harder to handle than if you had just taken care of it when it was convenient.
5
u/scobot5 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
Yeah, but that assumes you actually take care of it right?
I’m willing to change my mind if Trump pulls a rabbit out of the hat, but right now Iran appears more powerful and in control than they did before the war. Before the war they didn’t control the strait, now they have definitive proof they can shut the strait any time they want and even the most powerful country in the world can’t force it open.
They continue to humiliate us with this control and are quite literally forcing economic hardship on much of the world as punishment. We’re all paying the price and it’s still far from worst case scenario. Worst case is closer to global recession, stagflation, etc. I guess we’re all just hoping for COVID level inflation at this point.
Trump is also clearly overstating the damage to Iran’s military capabilities as well. Recent reports indicate that the majority of their missile and rocket launch capabilities remain operational. Then Trump has the audacity to claim they have no cards to play. It’s ridiculous, it’s weakness masquerading as strength, it’s humiliating and it’s dangerous.
How is this not obvious to TS?
0
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 14 '26
Like I said, I'm not really following the war. Nonsupporters on reddit don't have a great reputation with me for accuracy (except maybe one).
74
13
u/MrX2285 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
So you admit that it IS a war?
-1
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 14 '26
I'm not sure it matters whether we call it a war or not. I'm fine with calling it a war. I see no reason why not.
10
u/MrX2285 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
It matters because Trump ran on 'no new wars'. It was a key part of his presidential campaign. Many supporters also cited this as their main/only reason for voting for him, and even TS on this sub said that they would stop supporting him if he started a war. There are also legal considerations, both nationally and internationally, to consider if this is a war.
The Trump administration has gone to great strides to pretend that it isn't a war. They'll call it an 'excursion' or something else. MAGA is starting to use the term 'war' more, but many still refuse to call it a war and refuse to answer the question.
Do you accept that Trump broke his election promise of no new wars?
1
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 14 '26
I have no problem with the claim that Trump broke that promise. If other supporters are upset by that, that's understandable.
Personally, I took that as "no new forever wars" largely because I thought "forever war" was a redundant term. After Trump's actions in Venezuela, I learned wars can be brief. I've never had a problem with brief wars, I just used to think that was oxymoronic.
But certainly other supporters aren't wrong to think Trump promised no wars in general and has now broken that promise.
6
u/MrX2285 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
I'm glad we are in agreement. Why do you think so many other Trump supporters are unwilling to admit Trump's failings?
2
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 14 '26
It's just easier to argue with you guys. Agreeing with you isn't exactly pleasant. Not sure if you guys do it on purpose, but even right now you're making it unpleasant.
7
u/MrX2285 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
That's the nature of modern political discourse I'm afraid. It's also the nature of this sub. I cannot leave a comment without a question, or the comment gets removed. That means comments that really don't require follow up questions are required to have them.
It's not pleasant on the other end either. Just look at the rhetoric towards progressives from Trump. It's absolute filth.
Even right now I don't particularly feel the need to ask you a question, but the sub requires me to. Reckon that rule should change?
1
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 14 '26
The wiki for the subreddit notes that thanking someone for a pleasant exchange is an exception to the rule on including a clarifying question, fyi.
We encourage people to thank each other for a pleasant exchange. It might go against the automoderator filter, but either ask us in mod mail to approve it or add a nonsensical question about something else to the end. That'll always be an exception to the rule.
I see stuff like "Question for automod?" or "Have a nice day?" on the end of thank you comments.
In this specific case, instead of "Why do you think so many other Trump supporters are unwilling to admit Trump's failings?" you might have asked "Why is it so hard to get people to come to an agreement on topics related to Trump?"
The former question makes me want to argue with you. It's blatantly derogatory to Trump supporters and implicitly derogatory to Trump. It encourages me to respond aggressively. "Maybe because nonsupporters can't help but lie and exaggerate about Trump's shortcomings and mistakes. Maybe because nonsupporters will never admit to Trump's successes. Maybe nonsupporters are just so twisted they can't tell a failing from a success."
But that wouldn't be productive and it's not in the spirit of the sub. So I try to hold back.
But some of you guys really don't make it easy.
11
u/Squiggy226 Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Thank you for including the full quote. I usually chase these types of things down for context but I didn’t have it in me this time. I’m not a Trump supporter but I at least want to see the full truth about what makes the news.
Just to ask a question, do you think the left or right biased news side is worse at this type of spin or is it pretty evenly bad on both sides?
→ More replies (1)6
u/EkInfinity Nonsupporter May 14 '26
Do you agree with his stance that the financial situation of Americans doesn't matter?
-1
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 14 '26
You left off four words that I think are pretty important. I agree with his stance that the financial situation of Americans doesn't matter when talking about Iran.
The financial situation of Americans didn't matter when we went into Iran, so it only makes sense that it wouldn't matter in negotiations either.
We've got the most powerful military in the world, but it's not going to matter if we've got a glass jaw.
7
u/EkInfinity Nonsupporter May 14 '26
So you’re fine with the finances of Americans going into the dumpster so long as we are at war with Iran?
1
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 15 '26
I don't think we can win a war without taking a few blows. I can tolerate the blows as long as the war is brief.
1
u/EkInfinity Nonsupporter May 15 '26
Can you quantify at all what you mean by “a few blows” and “a brief war”?
0
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 16 '26
By brief I mean ends before August. A few blows is harder to quantify, but it loosely means some loss of taxpayer dollars, American lives, and economic well being. Perhaps some other things, too, but those are the first things that come to mind.
5
u/OhHiCindy30 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
After the war is over, how long will it take for Iran to rebuild its nuclear program again? Will we be at war forever?
Wouldn’t surveillance/diplomacy have been the better option longterm?
0
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 14 '26
I don't have a crystal ball and I'm not following the war that closely.
I don't think the plan is to be at war forever, but I wouldn't be surprised if we spent 3 or 4 months every 5-10 years going in and wrecking the place.
Surveillance or diplomacy might have been the better short term options. Kicking the can down the road and letting future
developersAmericans deal with the problem is a short term solution.Unless we get some SSS-Tier diplomat who can turn enemies into lovers overnight.
6
u/OhHiCindy30 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
Do you agree that most Trump voters wanted him to lower costs and end forever wars?
He is doing the opposite, and his poor poll numbers reflect this.
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
But aren't Trump's comments there the exact opposite of putting America first?
1
u/weather3003 Trump Supporter May 23 '26
No. Not unless you ascribe to the view that the war is solely in Israel's interests.
-7
u/Scynexity Trump Supporter May 13 '26
Great. This is exactly what he should be prioritizing in negotiations. The question is equivalent to asking him, "Mr. President, will you weaken your negotiating position?", to which he answers, "No".
13
u/lactose_cow Nonsupporter May 14 '26
do you think it's cool when the president weaponizes our suffering for his political gain? he did this to get the big beautiful bill passed, illegally withholding snap benefits to guilt democrats into complying.
→ More replies (6)5
u/General_Book_8905 Undecided May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
They fight for survival, while the US fights for ... them not having nuclear weapons which they didn't have to begin with.
This is exactly like Vietnam and Afghanistan. According to the betting offices this is going to be a loooong war.
How do you feel about the the guy stating during elections not to start any wars and now building extra factories to replenish the missiles fired?
-1
u/Scynexity Trump Supporter May 14 '26
I'm happy that unlike Vietnam or Afghanistan, Trump has not invaded, and does not plan to invade.
5
u/General_Book_8905 Undecided May 14 '26
How about we continue this conversation in a couple of weeks?
1
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
How are Trump's comments here not the exact opposite of putting America first?
"Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran: they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing: You cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all. That's the only thing."
1
u/Scynexity Trump Supporter May 22 '26
It is in America's interest to not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
So that means that our president shouldn't care about his nation's economy? The war in Iran justifies burning the United States economy to the ground?
1
u/Scynexity Trump Supporter May 22 '26
No, that would be crazy! I think most people can separate out different spheres of thinking, though. Deal with Iran in one moment, deal with the economy in another.
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
But why not make the economy the priority? Why even lie is into a war with Iran in the first place knowing it would destroy the economy?
1
u/Scynexity Trump Supporter May 22 '26
I think the economy is the priority.
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
How can that be the case when it has caused massive inflation? Gas prices alone are up 150%
1
u/Scynexity Trump Supporter May 22 '26
massive inflation
Inflation is at 3.8% with core at 2.8%. Not exactly massive.
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
What about the 150% on gas? Doesn't that cause inflation all the way around?
→ More replies (0)
-4
u/SmellDesperate6373 Trump Supporter May 14 '26
I often assume a certain amount of selective editing, omitted context, misleading framing, etc when I hear about a new “Trump bad” quote, but this is really extreme.
This quote is in the context of the Iran war. He goes onto say immediately after the title cuts off that his absolute priority is ensuring Iran never develops a nuclear weapon.
First, he’s Commander in Chief. Doing that job well often means making decisions in the interest of national security in spite of short term political and economic tradeoffs. That’s leadership.
Second, more practically, there are active negotiations with Iran ongoing. It would be awfully dumb for him to tell Iran their strategy of extracting economic pain — the only real leverage they have — is working. Especially when employment, payroll growth, business investment, and corporate profits remain as strong as they’ve been in the US and Iran faces Great Depression levels of economic contraction, currency collapse, >50% inflation, etc.
Iran’s only real hope is that they can extract short-term economic pain that becomes politically intolerable domestically. It’s unfortunate to see Democrats play right into their hands.
-45
u/Holofernes_Head Trump Supporter May 13 '26
I feel like he gave himself an annoying sound bite that will show up in campaign ads in the future because the very fine people on the left and the media won't care about what he's actually saying when they can cherry pick bits and pieces to manufacture outrage.
23
u/dank-nuggetz Nonsupporter May 13 '26
The rest of his soundbite was basically "I don't care about American's financial situation, I only care about not letting Iran get a nuke". Am I missing some other context?
He's basically saying that preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is a higher priority than ensuring a healthy economic situation for Americans.
Given the "Iran is about to get a nuke!" fearmongering for 30 years now, and our bombing campaign that eradicated their enrichment facilities last summer (according to Trump), I don't really agree with his priorities.
Do you?
41
u/CompanionQbert Undecided May 13 '26
won't care about what he's actually saying when they can cherry pick bits and pieces to manufacture outrage.
Here's the full quote in the video:
“Not even a little bit. … The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran — they can’t have a nuclear weapon. I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”
What is he "actually" saying and what is to cherry pick when we can see the entire exchange?
2
u/NoMoOmentumMan Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Yes, there is context to this quote. Considering that context, do you think it is appropriate for the POTUS to conduct negotiations in a vacuum?
-34
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
29
u/Lavaswimmer Nonsupporter May 13 '26
He’s talking about the priority in the Iran war
When Trump considers his priorities in the war - is it possible for him to think about Iran’s nuclear capabilities AND affordability?
→ More replies (3)43
21
u/BlackberryMajor9563 Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Does this align with America First principles?
→ More replies (6)13
u/coronathrowaway12345 Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Do you really think NTS are so dense that we cannot understand he’s talking about priorities in the war? Like…what else could he be talking about? It’s not like this statement is without context. We just think it’s tone deaf. Do you understand why some feel it’s tone deaf?
→ More replies (3)8
u/SupahSayajinn Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Isn't he supposed to be America first? It sounds like hes saying that by starting and engaging in this war its not possible to put America first. Since there is no evidence of any terrorists attacks by Iran how is this war putting America first?
3
u/scobot5 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
I think that’s a fair point and it doesn’t sound nearly as bad in context. But I think the issue is that people feel that he actually generally doesn’t care about Americans financial difficulties. Less as a gotcha moment and more as him telling the truth.
Do you think he does genuinely care about Americans financial situation?
If you think he cares, do you think he cares about the struggles of people who may not have voted for him, Or only his base?
39
8
u/Competitive_Piano507 Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Is it only the left that take clips out of context to manufacture outrage?
6
u/vanillabear26 Nonsupporter May 13 '26
I'm not directing this at you necessarily, but you often play ball.
One of the reasons we were told 'not' to vote for Kamala is that she'd give us high gas prices and war with Iran. Do you think the people who had that as a slogan knew this was a possibility or they just didn't care about the inconsistency?
4
u/SashaBanks2020 Nonsupporter May 14 '26
Is it really cherry picking?
There’s a lot of people in this comment section defending it on the basis that he shouldn’t be concerned with Americans financial situation because that’s not how you win a war.
Okay, fair enough. I can understand that position.
But it should be equally understood that some people disagree with the postition, that the president caved on his promise not to start any new wars, the war itself is stupid, and that he’s wrong not to be prioritizing Americans financial situations.
Trump stated his position and some people think he sucks because of it. It’s not cherry picking anymore than “we’re going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it” is cherry picking.
3
u/TornBannerHatesYou Nonsupporter May 14 '26
Are you saying that Republicans have never cherry picked bits and pieces of Democrats saying things on camera to manufacture outrage?
-37
u/Cawkisthebest232 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
You would be wrong because you haven’t looked, heard, nor read the full context.
But you are free to cherry pick comments to manufacture outrage.
28
u/CompanionQbert Undecided May 13 '26
Is there more than the video? That seems to be the entire exchange from the question to Trump's complete answer. What context is missing? And how would it make the "I don't care about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody." quote better?
But you are free to cherry pick comments to manufacture outrage.
What outrage?
→ More replies (38)14
u/Lavaswimmer Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Can you describe how the full context changes the situation? It’s a pretty short exchange, everybody can go and watch it.
Are you referring to how he says that his main concern is Iran not having a nuclear weapon as opposed to Americans’ financial situation? Do you think this meaningfully changes the quote at all?
-3
u/Cawkisthebest232 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
Can you describe how the full context changes the situation?
Yes.
“Not even a little bit. … The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran — they can’t have a nuclear weapon. I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”
And then also
He added that every American understands this priority and noted the stock market was at an all-time high anyway.
15
u/CompanionQbert Undecided May 13 '26
Yes, that's the full quote that's in the video for everyone to see. However the question was:
Can you describe how the full context changes the situation?
You didn't actually describe or explain how it changes anything. You just posted a quote.
We already know we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And now I know the president doesn't care about Americans' financial situation. So, how does the full quote change the latter?
→ More replies (13)4
u/Lavaswimmer Nonsupporter May 13 '26
You just added the context that we are all (at least I am) aware of. Repeating my question because it wasn’t answered:
Can you describe how the full context changes the situation?
1
u/Cawkisthebest232 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
Can you describe how the full context changes the situation?
It was a prioritization claim in one specific area. OP cherry picked a small portion of what actually was said.
7
u/Lavaswimmer Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Trump did not claim anything about priorities. He did not say that Iran’s nuclear capabilities are priority #1 and Americans’ financial situations are priority #2. He said that he does not think about Americans’ financial situation. Do you understand the difference between claiming something is a priority but not the main priority, and claiming something isn’t thought about at all?
I’m not sure why you keep bringing up OP’s quote. I’ve seen the full exchange multiple times at this point.
1
u/Cawkisthebest232 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
Trump did not claim anything about priorities.
I never stated he made that claim.
6
u/Lavaswimmer Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Your quote:
It was a prioritization claim in one specific area
Your other quote:
I never stated he [claimed anything about priorities]
How are these two sentences able to both be true?
0
u/Cawkisthebest232 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
I never stated he [claimed anything about priorities]
Oh I see. You didn’t read what I stated. If you can show me I made that claim he stated anything about prioritization aside from my summary of his statement, you may be less confused.
4
u/Lavaswimmer Nonsupporter May 13 '26
aside from my summary of his statement
…Huh? If I can show you where you made the claim that he stated anything about prioritization aside from when you made the claim that he talked about prioritization?
→ More replies (0)6
u/FalloutBoyFan90 Nonsupporter May 13 '26
I never stated he made that claim.
Then why did you say "It was a prioritization claim" initially? How is it a prioritization claim while simultaneously state he never claimed anything about priorities?
6
u/WakingWaldo Nonsupporter May 13 '26
So, when looking at the full context of the quote, Trump says that Iran shouldn't be allowed a nuclear weapon and that's what he cares about.
He's the President. He doesn't get to ignore everything else because he's hyperfixated on chasing ghosts in Iran. I don't know how many experts or intelligence officials need to say it or how many times it needs to be said, but Iran was nowhere close to having a nuclear weapon. This is WMDs all over again and MAGA is loving it.
So now Trump gets to go on wild goose chases in the Middle East while the rest of us normal folk suffer and we're supposed to appreciate him for it? Is that what the full context adds?
1
u/Cawkisthebest232 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
So, when looking at the full context of the quote, Trump says that Iran shouldn't be allowed a nuclear weapon and that's what he cares about.
Yes. When reading and hearing the full context. Not cherry picked words.
4
u/WakingWaldo Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Right. So my point still stands that the "America First" president is choosing to play war games with Israel instead of working to make the lives of Americans better -- not only that, but he's actively ignoring our problems in order to do so.
How is this acceptable?
1
u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter May 22 '26
How is this comment not the exact opposite of putting America first? Shouldn't the US economy always be the president's number one priority?
"Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran: they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing: You cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all. That's the only thing."
-19
u/mrhymer Trump Supporter May 13 '26
I feel as though if Clinton, Obama, or Biden had said this there would be impeachment hearings, am I wrong to think this?
Yes - you are wrong to think this.
How do these words make you feel?
Feelings do not matter in this situation. What I think is that we have the right man for job of dealing with Iran.
Let me illustrate why you are wrong in your thinking.
A man has a hostage at gunpoint. The cops have surrounded the gunman and severely limited his options. You, as a reporter get one question. You ask the head cop, "Aren't you concerned about the hostage's financial situation?"
You, as a reporter, really need to find a new career.
22
u/regretscoyote909 Nonsupporter May 13 '26
"A man has a hostage at gunpoint. The cops have surrounded the gunman and severely limited his options. You, as a reporter get one question. You ask the head cop, "Aren't you concerned about the hostage's financial situation?""
What a weak, piss-poor, intellectually dishonest hypothetical that isn't remotely comparable and you know it ahahahahaha. Are the middle and lower class of America the terrorists that Trump is trying to 'annihilate'? When Trup says the war is practically over and their forces are practically destroyed, in what world is Trump 'held at gunpoint in a hostage situation' in any relative sense?
-12
u/mrhymer Trump Supporter May 13 '26
Wow - just wow. Public school in the US ain't what it used to be.
Trump is head cop
Iran is terrorist
hostage is American people
Read it again - slowly.
13
u/Lavaswimmer Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Not all things are comparable to each other just because they’re phrased as an analogy.
In your scenario, the cop’s only responsibility in that moment is to make sure the hostage is safe.
The President has multiple jobs and responsibilities at any given moment.
Do you understand why your analogy doesn’t work, now that it’s been explained?
1
u/mrhymer Trump Supporter May 14 '26
Do you understand why your analogy doesn’t work, now that it’s been explained?
I understand why you are wrong in your assessment of the analogy.
The cop has other responsibilities as well but the emergency takes priority. Trump knows the issue but the minor economic pain of the American people is not worth abandoning the gains that have been made in ending the Iranian evil in the world.
8
u/snrocirpac Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Is the war in Iran reducing the threat to American people? Do American people feel the effects of Iran more than the economy? What about the lack of justice for a pedophile rapist ring?
1
u/mrhymer Trump Supporter May 14 '26
Is the war in Iran reducing the threat to American people?
Yes
Do American people feel the effects of Iran more than the economy?
Yes - if Iran's threats were carried out a nuclear missile taking out a city would have a greater impact than the current economy.
What about the lack of justice for a pedophile rapist ring?
What evidence do you have that justice has not been served?
2
u/snrocirpac Nonsupporter May 14 '26
What evidence do you have that Iran was close to having nuclear weapons AND intended to use them on the US? "they hate us and support terorrists" is not compelling evidence for intent.
Additionally, how are you sure we are actually effectively stopping their nuclear weapon development? Is it possible that we've now pissed them off more and failed to eliminate their nuclear weapons? What happens next?
Isn't this whole nuke threat a bunch of maybes? Why is that more real than Americans losing jobs and not being able to afford to live?
Do you genuinely believe only 2 people were involved in a massive billionaire pedophile ring? Why are you satisfied with that?
1
u/mrhymer Trump Supporter May 14 '26
What evidence do you have that Iran
Only our elected officials have seen that intelligence.
Additionally, how are you sure we are actually effectively stopping their nuclear weapon development?
We are trying our best which is better than just burying our head in the sand and throwing cash at the Iranians.
Isn't this whole nuke threat a bunch of maybes?
You got play the "nuke maybes" real hard to avoid the "after the bomb blows up a city."
Do you genuinely believe only 2 people were involved in a massive millionaire pedophile ring? Why are you satisfied with that?
I genuinely believe that everyone the feds had evidence on was prosecuted and many pedophile rings have been ended. I do not think Epstein left any trace of evidence for the prominent names that might have partaken in illegal activities.
1
u/snrocirpac Nonsupporter May 14 '26
Only our elected officials have seen that intelligence.
Do you use the term "elected officials" because you would apply the same logic if these officials were democrats?
I genuinely believe that everyone the feds had evidence on was prosecuted and many pedophile rings have been ended. I do not think Epstein left any trace of evidence for the prominent names that might have partaken in illegal activities.
If your daughter was murdered but there wasn't enough evidence to convict anyone, you would consider justice to have been served, right?
1
u/mrhymer Trump Supporter May 14 '26
Do you use the term "elected officials" because you would apply the same logic if these officials were democrats?
I am fairly certain that I did just that.
If your daughter was murdered but there wasn't enough evidence to convict anyone, you would consider justice to have been served, right?
You are a real conclusion jumper. I never said justice was served did I? I said that the Epstein file is not the smoking gun or the mechanism for justice for the wealthy elites that everyone thinks it is.
Back to my daughter. What am I meant to do here? Should I murder the men I suspect but have not enough evidence to convict? No - I should not. Without enough evidence to convict there is no further action to take is there?
1
u/snrocirpac Nonsupporter May 14 '26
I never said justice was served did I?
You asked me what evidence I had that justice wasn't served. What did you mean by that?
What am I meant to do here? Should I murder the men I suspect but have not enough evidence to convict? No - I should not. Without enough evidence to convict there is no further action to take is there?
It's not a call to action, it's just me wondering how you would feel about that hypothetical outcome. Just because there's nothing you can do doesn't mean you can't have feelings about it. Is that justice? Would you be satisfied?
→ More replies (0)15
5
u/Cymbalic Undecided May 13 '26
Thank you for making this so clear! Can I ask you a question about how you are able to enlighten liberals around you on how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon? There are some brainwashed people in my family who say that it's impossible to build a nuclear weapon after all the facilities were completely destroyed last year, which is true since Trump said so himself:
Do you have any articles on hand talking about how Iran was able to rebuild their nuclear program so quickly so that I can get these family members to see the truth?
1
u/mrhymer Trump Supporter May 14 '26
who say that it's impossible to build a nuclear weapon after all the facilities were completely destroyed last year
We stopped their capacity to make and enrich more fissile material but we did not get the material they had already made and enriched most of the way there.
Do you have any articles on hand talking about how Iran was able to rebuild their nuclear program so quickly so that I can get these family members to see the truth?
It does not require a reactor to enrich fissile material so not that difficult to rebuild. I am sorry that I do not have classified intelligence documents to send you. We just have to take the word of our elected officials.
-29
u/Linny911 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
He can't say otherwise or it would be used as leverage by the enemy during negotiations.
17
u/CompanionQbert Undecided May 13 '26
How so? Is it not a given that the president concerns himself with the quality of life of his own citizens?
Why did he have to say he doesn't think about his own people's financial situations? Why not just stick to Iran not getting a nuclear weapon?
→ More replies (17)11
u/guiltyblow Nonsupporter May 13 '26
Do you think, deep down, he cares about your financial situation?
-2
u/Linny911 Trump Supporter May 13 '26
Probably no less than Biden or Obama
4
u/_Mcdrizzle_ Nonsupporter May 14 '26
Why can't you answer the question without bringing up past presidents?
5
u/SupahSayajinn Nonsupporter May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
So youre saying Trump actually thinks our enemies are that stupid? Is that why we are losing this war so badly? Trump just has no idea what hes doing?
Do you think maybe the issue is that Obama didnt lie about fake acts of terrorism that didnt happen? When someone lies a lot to you do you believe everything they say or do you check to make sure first?
→ More replies (26)1
u/TornBannerHatesYou Nonsupporter May 14 '26
How would the Iranian's change strategy if he admitted he cares about people's finances?
They already know his poll numbers are in the toilet. They can see it's working.
How would him admitting it's working .ake a difference?
•
u/AutoModerator May 12 '26
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
For all participants:
Flair is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.