EPTAccording to this guy the war on Iran is nothing more than a pump & dump scheme gone bad for insider trading that will leave the world in a state where covid lockdowns were a picnic in comparison.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5649
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17772 Posts
According to this guy the war on Iran is nothing more than a pump & dump scheme gone bad for insider trading that will leave the world in a state where covid lockdowns were a picnic in comparison. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2762 Posts
On April 09 2026 16:14 SC-Shield wrote: Orban is gone soon, I'm not worried about that. At least this is what polls predict. For Trump's power to be weakened, we'll have to wait until midterm election. The US really needs to invest more into pre-university education so that deranged grandpas like Trump are never elected again. Although I do passionately believe in a well-funded education system, in the USA public schools are funded locally by property taxes. There's not much that can be done at a federal level except making certain materials and standardized tests more cost effective. Regardless of that, the far-right has risen in countries that also have excellent education systems. The real issue is media ownership, especially social media. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria857 Posts
On April 09 2026 19:59 LightSpectra wrote: Although I do passionately believe in a well-funded education system, in the USA public schools are funded locally by property taxes. There's not much that can be done at a federal level except making certain materials and standardized tests more cost effective. Regardless of that, the far-right has risen in countries that also have excellent education systems. The real issue is media ownership, especially social media. Yes, you're right about social media. I do believe it also happens when a large group of people feel ignored. For example, there was backlash against Syrian refugees during Merkel's term and pro-immigration people were like "f*ck you, you're racist". I do expect people who feel ignored to vote for anti-establishment in such cases when people's worries are not addressed. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2762 Posts
Number of immigrants coming to Canada is just right/too few/too many: November 2024 - 34%/7%/54% December 2012 - 53%/11%/27% The number of immigrants didn't vastly change. Consider also that even people against immigration don't always consider it an urgent issue, so that 27% from 2012 is an even smaller number when campaign season is on and your party has to decide on what to campaign and how. Now, those people are perhaps justified in being mad about being ignored, but 1 person being mad remains 1 person. How did that anger spread to other people who went on to claim "we are the majority and we were ignored"? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22427 Posts
Without social media or algorithms designed to make and keep you angry the underlying problems would still be there creating very real and justified discontent. But the result might be different, or it might not. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria857 Posts
- it tracks how much you pause to read a post - it tracks if you react to a post (comment or like/angry/laugh reaction) - it may also track what content you search for to show you more of it In simple terms, it promotes social bubbles or what is called in this forum "echo chamber". I don't think social media is designed specifically to make you angry as Gorsameth says, that's your decision if you chase political debates. I believe it's designed to keep you interested in platform as much as possible. If you participate in travel posts, you'll get that. Probably less reasons there to be angry, Facebook just wants you involved. Otherwise, it will decline in popularity... I don't like it, but it's the way it is. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11895 Posts
In simple terms, it promotes social bubbles or what is called in this forum "echo chamber". I don't think social media is designed specifically to make you angry as Gorsameth says, that's your decision if you chase political debates. I believe it's designed to keep you interested in platform as much as possible. I think those two are linked. Iirc studies show that anger is the emotion that is most likely to keep you engaged. So if you want to keep people on the platform, make them angry. Other emotions also work, but anger is by far the best for this. If this is true, even if you don't start with this idea, when you optimize "engagement" that will always lead to anger. And as we know, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46098 Posts
On April 09 2026 19:21 oBlade wrote: That's fair. I used "third" as a nod to the fact that it was one of three violations, but I should have written "one of three" instead. In order of appearance on the list, you're right that it's the first violation mentioned that's related to Trump, not the third violation. Yes my mistake for taking a "semantic" approach. I thought when you said Trump broke the ceasefire, it would mean that you thought Trump broke the ceasefire. Not that Israel broke the ceasefire and Trump failed to unbomb Hezbollah. That was the first violation. Not the third. The third violation Ghalibaf mentioned that you ate up was... someone said Iran can't enrich uranium. And loyal old Iran has stuck to the ceasefire right? Yes, their bombing of the UAE is clearly just retaliation against Israel. No? Why do you think this? Iran has been far from perfect, and they're attacking off-limits areas too. They clearly seem to be in violation of the mediation too, just like how Trump and Israel are blatantly disregarding the mediation. Like if Jerome punches Tim, Tim's friend Bill should punch a random Sunni Muslim just to get even. You don't know what name-dropping means either? This is pretty bad. Just naming the group that got bombed is called "naming." | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17618 Posts
On April 09 2026 19:38 Manit0u wrote: According to this guy the war on Iran is nothing more than a pump & dump scheme gone bad for insider trading that will leave the world in a state where covid lockdowns were a picnic in comparison. The war in Iran revolves around Israel. Israel is a nation created via an intentionally set up power void. This tiny country is extremely expensive to defend with its meandering, constantly shifting borders. This nation's creation was primarily motivated by the goal of maintaining or even increasing WW2 levels of military spending while minimizing casualties. Looking at worldwide military spending and world wide casualty levels project Israel is a sweeping success. While the war in Iran is going on Israel is busy trying to expand its northern border. Anyhow, I took a closer look at the #s in this post here. https://tl.net/blogs/643960-iranian-anarchists-organize-and-resist?page=2#25 The purpose of facilitating the ambiguous creation of a tiny state with constantly changing, meandering borders (1) maximum, WW2 style, military spending throughout the region (2) minimal casualties far lower than WW1 and WW2 In the eyes of the global elites Israel is a great success. The global elites are very happy with the state of the middle east. Let's examine the numbers. World Wide Military Casualties The Last 10 Years ~1.5 Million deaths due to military conflict the past 10 years. This is an historic low for the modern era. World Wide Military Military Spending The Last 10 Years $2.4 Trillion Per Year. This is an historic high. Maximum government/military spending... minimal deaths. We are living in paradise! On April 09 2026 19:38 Manit0u wrote: will leave the world in a state where covid lockdowns were a picnic in comparison. according to the statistics I've posted... things are going great. And Trump is going for a massive military budget increase next year. If Trump gets his requested military spending increase the USA, on an inflation adjusted basis, will be spending more on military in 2026/2027 than it did during the peak of World War 2. On an inflation adjusted basis the USA spent 1.2T in 1 year at the peak of WW2. Trump wants either 1.4T or 1.6T... i can't recall the exact #. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6244 Posts
On April 09 2026 21:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That's fair. I used "third" as a nod to the fact that it was one of three violations, but I should have written "one of three" instead. In order of appearance on the list, you're right that it's the first violation mentioned that's related to Trump, not the third violation. No? Why do you think this? Iran has been far from perfect, and they're attacking off-limits areas too. They clearly seem to be in violation of the mediation too, just like how Trump and Israel are blatantly disregarding the mediation. I'm just going to interpret this dodge as a clear concession on your part. "But but but it's Hezbollah!!!!11" doesn't create a special exemption from the mediation. Name dropping is when you mention a name to make you look better than you are. Not when you know the difference between Iran and Hezbollah. You quoted me to tell me "Blumpf broke the ceasefire 3 times this Iranian propaganda proves it!" More productive would be to just start from the honesty that has to be dragged out of you where you now admit what you really meant was Israel and Iran broke the ceasefire once each and Trump didn't do anything about it, though Israel broke it in a way that Israel/US may be claiming was never actually agreed to. | ||
KwarK
United States44120 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17618 Posts
On April 09 2026 21:47 KwarK wrote: If only there had been some other way of keeping military spending high in the west after 1945. But the reality is that there were no outstanding geopolitical questions left unresolved after WW2, no ideological divides, no real threats. That’s why they were forced to create conflict in the Middle East to justify military spending. you don't create a specific conflict. that can get verified and proven and you appear evil. you just create a power void. the conflicts will create themselves. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
797 Posts
On April 09 2026 20:29 LightSpectra wrote: To be fair you need to keep in mind it might be a cumulative effect and also changing demographics of who exactly is coming to Canada.Number of immigrants coming to Canada is just right/too few/too many: November 2024 - 34%/7%/54% December 2012 - 53%/11%/27% The number of immigrants didn't vastly change. I don't know all the details about immigration issues in Canada but I read it has fewer and fewer immigrants from Europe and US, and more and more immigrants from Asia and Africa compared to 15-20 years ago. So maybe locals are more ok with one source than the other because level of integration can be different between different groups? And of course it also always depends on other factors - e.g. different situation in economy, house market, healthcare and education can affect whether locals are ok with more people coming or not. So maybe Canada's situation is different with house market or healthcare state or overall economy now compared to 2012? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22427 Posts
On April 09 2026 21:08 SC-Shield wrote: As Simberto said its not specifically designed to make you angry but anger is an amazing engagement driver.A while ago I was doing my own research how Facebook shows posts and it largely confirmed my suspicions: - it tracks how much you pause to read a post - it tracks if you react to a post (comment or like/angry/laugh reaction) - it may also track what content you search for to show you more of it In simple terms, it promotes social bubbles or what is called in this forum "echo chamber". I don't think social media is designed specifically to make you angry as Gorsameth says, that's your decision if you chase political debates. I believe it's designed to keep you interested in platform as much as possible. If you participate in travel posts, you'll get that. Probably less reasons there to be angry, Facebook just wants you involved. Otherwise, it will decline in popularity... I don't like it, but it's the way it is. By optimizing for engagement your indirectly optimizing to some degree for anger/outrage. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2762 Posts
On April 09 2026 21:59 ZeroByte13 wrote: To be fair you need to keep in mind it might be a cumulative effect and also changing demographics of who exactly is coming to Canada. I don't know all the details about immigration issues in Canada but I read it has fewer and fewer immigrants from Europe and US, and more and more immigrants from Asia and Africa compared to 15-20 years ago. So maybe locals are more ok with one source than the other because level of integration can be different between different groups? And of course it also always depends on other factors - e.g. different situation in economy, house market, healthcare and education can affect whether locals are ok with more people coming or not. So maybe Canada's situation is different with house market or healthcare state or overall economy now compared to 2012? Those are all valid points, but I'd say people getting more unhappy with immigrants as wealth inequality spirals is precisely the point. Why is taxing the rich still considered so radical but kicking out immigrants is mainstream, even though it's an overwhelming majority opinion from economists that immigrants are a net economic gain? It's because right-wing media sets the agenda, and there's a lot more of that than left-wing media. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46098 Posts
On April 09 2026 21:40 oBlade wrote: Name dropping is when you mention a name to make you look better than you are. Not when you know the difference between Iran and Hezbollah. I'm glad you supposedly know the difference between Iran and Hezbollah, but you've been conflating Lebanon with Hezbollah. The mediator said Lebanon (and all other nearby regions) would be left alone, yet Israel and Trump have changed their minds on Lebanon, and you've been saying it's fine to violate the ceasefire because Hezbollah is being attacked. You even mentioning Hezbollah in the first place was an attempt at name-dropping an evil entity in order to justify the violation of the ceasefire, but my original point was that the ceasefire had been violated in the first place. Iranian propaganda proves it! You really need to provide a source for your assertion that the mediation team is in Iran's pocket, because I'm getting tired of you ignoring the fact that a seemingly neutral party is disagreeing with Trump and Israel's retcon. Why do you think that the Pakistani prime minister's statement is an example of "Iranian propaganda"? Just because it's corroborating Iran's statement that the ceasefire would include not bombing Lebanon anymore? | ||
|
dyhb
United States429 Posts
On April 09 2026 16:18 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: You just gotta hand it to the bloodthirsty state sponsors of terrorism that kill 30,000 of their own people: they just run the most credible wars. The wars where they're attacking non-parties with missiles, you know. Very credibleDoesn't seem to me like a case of 'declaring as truth anything that is anti-Trump' and more of a case of 'believing the side that has acted more credibly in this totally-not-war' Oh no, I'm showing recency bias, when talking about conduct during a war that just got hot a little over a month ago. I mean, what that source is claiming, is not very far fetched. Israel has verifiably continued its attacks in Lebanon. It's difficult to imagine a world where the US said 'go ahead on your nuclear program', we don't know about the drone, but again... not exactly farfetched that a drone flew over Iranian airspace. The source did not even claim that the US agreed to these conditions, in fact the phrasing is their '10-point ceasefire proposal'. While I'm not sure calling this 'Trump violating the ceasefire' is very accurate, do you have any reason to doubt 'Iran's *claims about what happened'? Given one of his points is verifiably true, one would be difficult to imagine being untrue, and the third being not really an extraordinary claim. I'd say it's more of a case that this ceasefire had very few terms and conditions to begin with, let alone any they actually agree on and we are just seeing two sides confirm there is little common ground for a ceasefire to actually take effect. Sorry, it reeks of bias. Particularly, calling their habit of lying in support of their regime as not germane to their credibility, and a strange excluded-middle fallacy that both sides simply can't be lying through their teeth. Two final things, since you've strayed from the post I wrote in ways that muddy up the issue. First, I gather you now agree with me that "Trump has already violated the terms of the ceasefire" is inaccurate? Remember, it's a positive statement of fact. That you both know what the terms were, and know that Trump violated them, simply because Iran told you. If you never disagreed with my post, just tell me. Second, why on earth does one side's penchant for lying mean you have to downrate the other's penchant for lying? I expect both to lie in their self-interest. That makes the search for the truth of it more difficult. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4996 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6244 Posts
On April 09 2026 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm glad you supposedly know the difference between Iran and Hezbollah, but you've been conflating Lebanon with Hezbollah. The mediator said Lebanon (and all other nearby regions) would be left alone, yet Israel and Trump have changed their minds on Lebanon, and you've been saying it's fine to violate the ceasefire because Hezbollah is being attacked. You even mentioning Hezbollah in the first place was an attempt at name-dropping an evil entity in order to justify the violation of the ceasefire, but my original point was that the ceasefire had been violated in the first place. You really need to provide a source for your assertion that the mediation team is in Iran's pocket, because I'm getting tired of you ignoring the fact that a seemingly neutral party is disagreeing with Trump and Israel's retcon. Why do you think that the Pakistani prime minister's statement is an example of "Iranian propaganda"? Just because it's corroborating Iran's statement that the ceasefire would include not bombing Lebanon anymore? --->> Hezbollah is in Lebanon. <<--- You brought this information to me like I'm supposed to use it to send Blumpf to the principal's office. By all accounts this was an 11th hour ceasefire agreement. As such I find it more than plausible for there to be misunderstandings and miscommunications. Pakistani PM may believe he's right, but someone along the line said something wrong, lied, or optimistically fibbed. "So the US and Israel agreed to cease fire?" "Yes" "Everywhere, right?" "Uhh.. Yes" If Trump started an illegal war by bombing Iran in the end of February, why would he need to make a ceasefire only to violate it immediately to allow Israel to fight Hezbollah? Why not just... not make a ceasefire, and continue the illegal war? (This simplified question again assumes Israel is Trump which is not a starting axiom I agree with) This is why you mentioning Hezbollah is interesting: They've been supported, trained, equipped, propped up, by Iran since decades ago. That means this war didn't start at the end of February, it started when Hezbollah started fighting Israel. You come to me with this "Israel agreed not to fight in Lebanon" and say "Iran said it, and if that's not enough... Pakistan said it!" Now I find the fact that nations of the world can't publicly agree to what they agreed to in a rushed ceasefire agreement interesting, perhaps even funny, find it again to be a symbol of the UN's uselessness and failure, but I do not find it in the least bit surprising. Kind of like how I find your repeated total ignorance of the question and failure to explain Iran's other accusations of "a drone touched my airspace" and that somebody saying they can't enrich uranium violated the ceasefire agreement, also funny and not surprising at all. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44120 Posts
On April 09 2026 23:28 oBlade wrote: Why not just... not make a ceasefire, and continue the illegal war? You're posing this as if it's a watertight logical argument and it's really not. If Trump really felt trapped by the imminent expiration of his arbitrary deadline for the strait to be reopened then why would he not simply remain in the trap and be humiliated by everyone? What possible reason could he have for extending the deadline after his threats failed? | ||
| ||
