|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 10 2026 02:57 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +A few tankers are passing through despite the risks, and some are turning off their signals to pass through at night and may not be accounted for, said Matt Smith, an oil analyst with Kpler. I agree with the premise though. Much fewer passed through the past few days.
Well, I think that "may not be accounted for" is doing a lot of work there.
Sure, a smaller ship might have slipped through at night with everything turned off, a tanker large enough to be relevant to this conversation absolutely did not because these things are being tracked and you can bet there would be plenty of coverage of this.
|
On March 10 2026 03:11 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2026 02:57 Yurie wrote:A few tankers are passing through despite the risks, and some are turning off their signals to pass through at night and may not be accounted for, said Matt Smith, an oil analyst with Kpler. I agree with the premise though. Much fewer passed through the past few days. Well, I think that "may not be accounted for" is doing a lot of work there. Sure, a smaller ship might have slipped through at night with everything turned off, a tanker large enough to be relevant to this conversation absolutely did not because these things are being tracked and you can bet there would be plenty of coverage of this.
And even if they turned off their signals to pass through, they will probably turn them on once they are save again. So this should be pretty easily detectable by a ship first being on one side, then disappearing, then being on the other side a few hours later.
|
According to Bloomberg in January.
Analysts stated in January, Mojtaba Khamenei, was already the primary coordinator for intelligence and security appointments, effectively running the Office of the Supreme Leader while his father was increasingly sidelined due to age and health.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-01-28/how-iran-supreme-leader-khamenei-s-son-built-a-global-property-empire
Mojtaba Khamenei was already running Iran weeks/months before his father died. Why wouldn't the USA/Israel and Israel go after the guy who was actually running the country? oh right, headlines on Fox News for its massive viewer base of Iranian political experts. 
Trump and Hegseth have been droning on and on about what a great coup d'etat they pulled off February 28.
|
On March 10 2026 03:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote:According to Bloomberg in January. Analysts stated in January, Mojtaba Khamenei, was already the primary coordinator for intelligence and security appointments, effectively running the Office of the Supreme Leader while his father was increasingly sidelined due to age and health. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-01-28/how-iran-supreme-leader-khamenei-s-son-built-a-global-property-empireMojtaba Khamenei was already running Iran weeks/months before his father died. Why wouldn't the USA and Israel go after the guy who was actually running the country?
I am pretty sure current US leadership just assumes that it is normal that senile old men are in charge.
|
At no point did I say "Every single tanker is just turning their transponder off and transiting normally." Good job disproving that. And has nothing to do with Trump or a crony. It comes from you look at the map and you see certain ships disappear and others appear. This is either explained by spontaneous ship assembly and disassembly or someone sneaking through with their transponder off.
Linking paywalled articles you haven't read is a good one too. Keep doing that.
|
So amazing that oBlade is also an expert on shipping!
Ships are, due to GPS jamming measures in place in the gulf currently literally appearing stacked one on another, but our boy oBlade here is such an expert looking at the maps and spotting all these ships going through!
https://nitter.net/TankerTrackers
Saudis are stopping production from major fields, only ships that are counting on "Chinese" and "Turkish" owned are going through, besides, of course, Iranian ones.
Absolutely no one who knows anything about this is saying that ships are going through by turning off their shit, it's just people who's tongues are firmly attached to Trumps asshole who are parroting this idiotic idea.
The strait is not closed, its just closed for US allies and no amount of Trump's bullshit will allow it going through.
|
|
|
Screw fluoride they‘re going to have to start putting xanax into the tap water supply.
At least at the WH.
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
On March 10 2026 02:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2026 02:37 Billyboy wrote:
a grand conspiracy when a mix of hubris plus underestimating how batshit crazy Trump is will work.
The grand leader of Iran can almost never be charged with a crime. No criminal action means no conspiracy. We'll see how good the super genius amazing US counter intelligence spies are at finding his son.
Em no? That’s not how words work
Can you stop spouting bollocks for like 5 seconds, or alternatively at least stick around and discuss what you’re dropping?
Also how did the Republic die with Kennedy? What does that even mean?
Your posting is akin to the mailboy channeling his best Shoei Otani and risking his rotator cuffs to fuck a rolled up newspaper at my door. I’ll hear the thump, run to the door, I’ll get my newspaper, I can read it, but there’s zero interaction whatsoever.
You just like, say stuff and barely interact with anyone until it’s time for the next mic drop, it’s bizarre
|
Northern Ireland26336 Posts
On March 09 2026 16:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 03:30 WombaT wrote:On March 09 2026 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2026 00:24 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 07 2026 23:02 WombaT wrote:On March 07 2026 19:19 baal wrote:
It's wild how powerless a country is against a dictator who controls the army and is willing to mass kill his own citizens to remain in power.
I used to be anti-gun ownership but now I'm very pro because I've realized that there only two mechanism to get rid of this kind of dictators, well armed citizens or foreign intervention, and the 2nd usually gets very ugly quick. Folks aren’t powerless, they just have to be willing to potentially die. I don’t know how much having guns changes this calculus really. Perhaps a little. If folks aren’t willing to potentially die, it’s largely moot whether they’re armed or not. If the relevant institutions aren’t willing to crush such a movement, same thing. like the 20k who died in Iran and accomplished nothing? + Show Spoiler +They came up against a regime willing to crush them
My point was without the will to potentially die en masse, whether you have guns or not is immaterial as you won’t do anything without that will.
And if the will of a regime to crush a movement isn’t there, whether it’s armed or not won’t really be a factor there either. + Show Spoiler +I mean scenarios exist where having guns is rather handy. A failed state and complete collapse, foreign occupation, where people are willing to fight for prolonged periods, or indeed have to in order to merely survive. People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference. Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés. If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China). + Show Spoiler +As I’ve said prior when the battleground was electoral and cultural, but also stands when it’s literal. Those folks also have guns.
Your analyses seem to frequently skip over that a big chunk of the population is either outright enthusiastic about the Fascism, or willing to hold their nose while other things they like are being done. Then various graduations of those opposed, some of whom wouldn’t countenance direct action, some who would.
I don’t consider it a matter of cowardice, but one of morale, as you alluded to earlier.
Is the threat bad enough for me to risk life and limb, personal bravery is part of it. But the bigger impediment is that of realistically making a difference. Who’s manning the battlements with me?
It’s a small cohort of people indeed who go from relative comfort to bat on behalf of others, with few folks beside them and little chance of success.
In a crude sense you need a pretty egregious big bad, and you need a society that is 60, 70 or whatever+ who are all on the same page vaguely, at least united in wanting the regime gone.
This is just generally how populations operate, in reality most people in the US have pretty tolerable lives, certainly not passing the threshold into armed insurrection.
Americans aren’t even engaging in many of the direct action steps before that threshold, so it’s just not realistically on the table.
Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to the politics, I think average Americans would be far more likely to take up arms against a socialist revolution than encroaching Fascism. I've frequently made this point about ostensible "allies" that dominate/lead Democrat supporters' party. What I'm talking about there isn't a socialist revolution (though that'd obviously be my preference generally). What I'm talking about there is just plain anti-authoritarianism of various stripes, geography, logistics, etc. making it much more likely for the West coast to resist indefinitely. Cannabis (particularly in the early legalization years) is a bit of a microcosm of how that works. Probably won't start with secession. More informal ignoring of the federal government and no practical way for them to enforce it (without pushing the populace toward secession by making it increasingly rational).
I mean this splintered off from discussing the merits of an armed populace, so I was addressing that specifically.
Part of my point was that it’s basically irrelevant if Dave or Janette are armed, if there’s not a wider anti-authoritarian movement.
If there is, you can accomplish a lot without picking up a pea shooter, but you’ll do nout without
And I mean wasn’t cannabis legislation largely accomplished through gradual pressure and electoral shifts as well?
In a wider sense I mean sure, I’d imagine secessionism into smaller states is probably liable to deliver more realistic results than a US-scale civil war, although I wouldn’t consider either especially likely
|
On March 10 2026 03:58 WombaT wrote:
Also how did the Republic die with Kennedy? What does that even mean?
Your posting is akin to the mailboy channeling his best Shoei Otani and risking his rotator cuffs to fuck a rolled up newspaper at my door. I’ll hear the thump, run to the door, I’ll get my newspaper, I can read it, but there’s zero interaction whatsoever.
You just like, say stuff and barely interact with anyone until it’s time for the next mic drop, it’s bizarre
The Republic did not "die with Kennedy". Did you read what I wrote?
I will restate it again. Hopefully, it sinks in. The series of events occurring in the early 60s are an indicator the US is no longer a republic. The way military action is initiated in the USA since 1945 is another sign of a weakening of the US as a Republic. Trump 50,000 "emergencies" are another sign of a non-existent republic. In the Republic designed by Madison et al. The Prez does not make laws. The Prez is supposed to veto laws that are attempting to pass. Tariffs are the purview of Congress. Tariffs are not set via unilateral declaration of the President. Trump is running things closer to the way an Emporor rules an Empire than how a President is supposed to work within the Republic of the USA.
On top of all of that, the Presidents' decision making is compromised by Israeli influence since about 1965. Trump is just one in a long line of Presidents in that area.
|
On March 10 2026 02:57 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +A few tankers are passing through despite the risks, and some are turning off their signals to pass through at night and may not be accounted for, said Matt Smith, an oil analyst with Kpler. I agree with the premise though. Much fewer passed through the past few days. I'm also a bit wary of citing exact numbers based on analysis happening a world away. It's reduced, and how much it's reduced is partially reflected in current oil prices.
|
On March 10 2026 04:06 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2026 16:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2026 03:30 WombaT wrote:On March 09 2026 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 09 2026 00:24 WombaT wrote:On March 08 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 07 2026 23:02 WombaT wrote:On March 07 2026 19:19 baal wrote:
It's wild how powerless a country is against a dictator who controls the army and is willing to mass kill his own citizens to remain in power.
I used to be anti-gun ownership but now I'm very pro because I've realized that there only two mechanism to get rid of this kind of dictators, well armed citizens or foreign intervention, and the 2nd usually gets very ugly quick. Folks aren’t powerless, they just have to be willing to potentially die. I don’t know how much having guns changes this calculus really. Perhaps a little. If folks aren’t willing to potentially die, it’s largely moot whether they’re armed or not. If the relevant institutions aren’t willing to crush such a movement, same thing. like the 20k who died in Iran and accomplished nothing? + Show Spoiler +They came up against a regime willing to crush them
My point was without the will to potentially die en masse, whether you have guns or not is immaterial as you won’t do anything without that will.
And if the will of a regime to crush a movement isn’t there, whether it’s armed or not won’t really be a factor there either. + Show Spoiler +I mean scenarios exist where having guns is rather handy. A failed state and complete collapse, foreign occupation, where people are willing to fight for prolonged periods, or indeed have to in order to merely survive. People have pointed this out about fascists/Trump supporters before, but they are actually mostly cowards. Whether the population they are attempting to subjugate is armed or not makes a pretty huge difference. Every major war/conflict since Vietnam has demonstrated that the way to beat the US military hasn't been to outgun them though. The "they have tanks?!.." type rhetoric are just thoughtless clichés. If it comes down to it, I'd bet on Balkanization before the federal government can successfully beat a west coast resistance (especially if it has logistical support from China). + Show Spoiler +As I’ve said prior when the battleground was electoral and cultural, but also stands when it’s literal. Those folks also have guns.
Your analyses seem to frequently skip over that a big chunk of the population is either outright enthusiastic about the Fascism, or willing to hold their nose while other things they like are being done. Then various graduations of those opposed, some of whom wouldn’t countenance direct action, some who would.
I don’t consider it a matter of cowardice, but one of morale, as you alluded to earlier.
Is the threat bad enough for me to risk life and limb, personal bravery is part of it. But the bigger impediment is that of realistically making a difference. Who’s manning the battlements with me?
It’s a small cohort of people indeed who go from relative comfort to bat on behalf of others, with few folks beside them and little chance of success.
In a crude sense you need a pretty egregious big bad, and you need a society that is 60, 70 or whatever+ who are all on the same page vaguely, at least united in wanting the regime gone.
This is just generally how populations operate, in reality most people in the US have pretty tolerable lives, certainly not passing the threshold into armed insurrection.
Americans aren’t even engaging in many of the direct action steps before that threshold, so it’s just not realistically on the table.
Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to the politics, I think average Americans would be far more likely to take up arms against a socialist revolution than encroaching Fascism. I've frequently made this point about ostensible "allies" that dominate/lead Democrat supporters' party. What I'm talking about there isn't a socialist revolution (though that'd obviously be my preference generally). What I'm talking about there is just plain anti-authoritarianism of various stripes, geography, logistics, etc. making it much more likely for the West coast to resist indefinitely. Cannabis (particularly in the early legalization years) is a bit of a microcosm of how that works. Probably won't start with secession. More informal ignoring of the federal government and no practical way for them to enforce it (without pushing the populace toward secession by making it increasingly rational). I mean this splintered off from discussing the merits of an armed populace, so I was addressing that specifically. Part of my point was that it’s basically irrelevant if Dave or Janette are armed, if there’s not a wider anti-authoritarian movement. + Show Spoiler +
If there is, you can accomplish a lot without picking up a pea shooter, but you’ll do nout without
And I mean wasn’t cannabis legislation largely accomplished through gradual pressure and electoral shifts as well?
In a wider sense I mean sure, I’d imagine secessionism into smaller states is probably liable to deliver more realistic results than a US-scale civil war, although I wouldn’t consider either especially likely
We agree that you need to have people that are actually willing to do what it takes to oppose fascism (armed or not) and Democrats (the only ostensible opposition party Democrats will allow) aren't that. The status quo provides "pretty tolerable lives" for them à la Niemöller.
That is bad news for humanity (including their own).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
