|
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 |
So your belief is that the only people who want to use the Strait of Hormuz is Iran, which was closed by Iran to pressure the United States, who was willing to give $300,000,000,000 to Iran to open it back up, so that ships could go through it purely for Iran's benefit.
That makes sense, thanks.
|
On August 11 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:52 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 23:44 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months? Wow sorry, I thought you had a basic understanding of what Iran was doing. They are closing an important strait, and sending drones into US allies and their ships. It’s creating a massive imbalance because Irans weapons cost in the thousands and they have way more munitions than the multimillion dollar equipment that it takes to stop them. Yeah they've been doing that already and oil is at like $85 and nobody wants to use the Strait after realizing they're insane. Why did they add these demands now and not start from those? Utter waste of 5 months. Imagine how much quicker they could have gotten Blumpf to agree to war reparations. Of course, the amount of reparations paid would have been lower since 5 months of stuff would have remained un-blownup, but that's another issue. How many of those ultraefficient spartan munitions has Iran rained down upon its imperialist and worldwide neutral enemies in the last, say, week of not being able to move their own oil and use their own ports? This isn't rhetorical. On August 10 2026 23:32 Billyboy wrote:
So if the US doesn’t capitulate, Iran will just keep doing what they are doing. Iran doesn’t have elections to worry about, they don’t care about suffering on their citizens due to bombs or economic damage. They care about economic damage lol. That's what the little peashooting attacks are retaliation against. If your argument is they would send last ditch drones at cargo ships even if they had no US ships blockading them, because they don't have elections and don't care about anything... great, it's a super hawkish escalation justification. ROLF, you think the US is winning and wearing down Iran???? LOL OMFG Jesus Christ mate! They didn’t ask for it at the start because even their most positive assessments didn’t have the US doing it this badly. It’s too bad that you created an imaginary world and didn’t make it a pleasant place. Your answer of: ignored the question, was incorrect. Safe to say less than 10 drone/missile strikes. Why so few strikes when they're winning so hard? Would launching more strikes not get the US to un-blockade and unsanction their oil faster, which is the demand you told me they are going to get eventually? Why stall, why not make the US use those munitions now like you said. Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:48 LightSpectra wrote:On August 10 2026 23:44 oBlade wrote:
Yeah they've been doing that already and oil is at like $85 and nobody wants to use the Strait after realizing they're insane. As of this writing (10 August 2026, 8:47am central time) there are 120 tankers, 95 bulk carriers, and 135 other ships waiting to cross the Strait: https://hormuzstraitmonitor.com/If you scroll down there's a "Regional Impact Heatmap" that shows how much each part of the world relies on stuff moved through the Strait. Did you know 80% of South Korea's oil supply goes through Hormuz? Now do a breakdown of how many tankers are waiting to get IN, and how many are waiting to get OUT. What their flags and origins and destinations are. And compare that to traffic in January and February and the jam in March. For example the US just sent 55 away from transiting. https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/2086568419164369145
I don’t spend a lot of time questioning the winning sides strategy, clearly they know what they doing. The only question now is how much better than the Obama deal will they get. They are asking for full capitulation, so far Cheeto Mussolini is only up for partial.
Look forward to you tell us how Iran getting all their oil revenue and tolls from the strait is a great win for America. 🤣
|
On August 10 2026 23:10 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. I explained my stance, you as every dishonest actor ever are just moving goalposts. Well, whether you reply or not, I think it's pretty obvious that your hand-wringing and cosplaying being against what is happening in USA is performative, you don't really need to reply that you'd vote to keep Trump in power based on red scare style propaganda that has consumed your brain for that much to be obvious. Another day, another hypocrite trying to hide who they are. The same kind of lazy argumentation that is becoming too prominent to my left.
It's all some version of "I'm just going to call you a liar and call your real concerns performative. You're not worth engaging with, you're only worth dismissing."
(One second later) "Hey, guy I just called a liar and dismissed everything you said, I have questions for you!!! Stop dodging!"
Yes. This is trolling. You have to learn to respect others and have polite dialogue before you can join the adult table. You have the choice to live in partial ignorance and a constructed world where only a narrow segment of political left-of-center opinions are worth engaging with. We usually call that a "bubble" from the dismissive attitude you adopt when presented with opinions outside the bubble. I honor your decision on that level! If you make different decisions in the future, I'll honor those decisions!
You don't have to validate my concerns or share them. I'm not posting my views on El-Sayed to convince you to share my views either. But you can't act curious about my views while simultaneously writing them off as performative and insincere. You can't have it both ways.
On August 10 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:19 LightSpectra wrote:On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. Astounding how certain people in this thread are incapable of giving a simple answer to demonstrate they're not bad faithmaxxing. No state in the US has mandatory voting so the issue with "but who would you vote for"maxxing is you don't have to be bothered to vote at all to begin with. Look up the Republican running in a state you're not in to see if he would vote against Trump on all the important stuff (mind-boggingly unlikely) based on just the primary election campaigns and prior to an actual general election campaign (GASP!) where they talk about their differences, after you've just given the Democratic candidate the chance to "apologize for past behavior and mark a clear separation" and earn back your hypothetical vote----maxxing. And forgive me for paying much closer attention to my party's primaries than the other party's primaries! There's a whole general election fight to come! I'm very familiar with Democrats running left in the primary campaign to secure the activist left-wing votes that are highly represented in primary votes, and then either making a convincing or unconvincing pivot to the center in the general campaign.
|
On August 11 2026 00:34 LightSpectra wrote:
So your belief
No.
On August 11 2026 00:34 LightSpectra wrote:
is that the only people who want to use the Strait of Hormuz is Iran,
No. It says right there.
Other countries, not quite as much anymore,
On no planet does that mean "only people.... is [sic] Iran."
Simplifying and snark-proofing this for you.
On August 11 2026 00:34 LightSpectra wrote:
which was closed by Iran to pressure the United States,
They closed the Strait to other countries' traffic, not to their own ships.
When the Strait first closed, there were a lot of ships using it.
Now, oil is rerouted and demand and supply have adjusted elsewhere. Sure crude is say $85. It's not $200 lol.
Less ships are using the Strait, but not just because they can't. They now don't need to, they don't want to, they can go elsewhere.
The exceptions to this are Gulf states like Iran (our enemy), Iraq, and Qatar. Again, Iran didn't close the Strait to their own ships (???), the reason they can't use it is the US blockade.
It hurts Iran not to be able to use the Strait. It also hurts others less than it did in March because the rerouting and substitution means there's less for Iran to block which means there's less leverage. Except Iran doesn't have other options. So they're screwed by the blockade. And countries like Qatar are now just sick of their shit. The ships are equally sick of it. Why bother going there as a Thai flagged cargo ship if there's even a chance some IRGC lieutenant will crash out and launch a drone at you. There's no point in bothering, you have no obligation.
The leverage is not increasing with time. This is reflected in the price stabilization, the RELATIVE lack of traffic bothering to even try to transit, and the reduction in futile peashooting attacks. They haven't sunk a thing since March. And that was a container ship and a tugboat.
On August 11 2026 00:34 LightSpectra wrote:
who was willing to give $300,000,000,000 to Iran to open it back up, so that ships could go through it purely for Iran's benefit.
That makes sense, thanks.
Wow Iran certainly gave up a lot when they unilaterally broke the MOU by shooting at a Singaporean and Panamanian ship.
|
On August 11 2026 01:06 dyhb wrote:
300 something words and still no answer to a question that requires 1.
On August 11 2026 01:15 oBlade wrote:
Again, Iran didn't close the Strait to their own ships (???), the reason they can't use it is the US blockade.
Trump agreed to give $300b to Iran because American ships were blockading their Strait and hurting Iran?
It hurts Iran not to be able to use the Strait. It also hurts others less than it did in March because the rerouting and substitution means there's less for Iran to block which means there's less leverage. Except Iran doesn't have other options. So they're screwed by the blockade. And countries like Qatar are now just sick of their shit. The ships are equally sick of it. Why bother going there as a Thai flagged cargo ship if there's even a chance some IRGC lieutenant will crash out and launch a drone at you. There's no point in bothering, you have no obligation.
I love this parallel universe where Iran is begging to open the Strait and offering enormous reparations to the United States to be able to use it again.
Wow Iran certainly gave up a lot when they unilaterally broke the MOU by shooting at a Singaporean and Panamanian ship.
They figured they could get even more than $300b when they broke the ceasefire. Do you know how bad the USA's position must be if they're giving Iran more money than what was required by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and Iran thought "we can get an even better deal out of this"? They're either insane or right, and judging by the fact that Trump is letting them make nukes now, they're not looking insane.
|
On August 11 2026 01:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2026 01:15 oBlade wrote:
Again, Iran didn't close the Strait to their own ships (???), the reason they can't use it is the US blockade. Trump agreed to give $300b to Iran because American ships were blockading their Strait and hurting Iran?
What am I reading?
On August 11 2026 01:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +It hurts Iran not to be able to use the Strait. It also hurts others less than it did in March because the rerouting and substitution means there's less for Iran to block which means there's less leverage. Except Iran doesn't have other options. So they're screwed by the blockade. And countries like Qatar are now just sick of their shit. The ships are equally sick of it. Why bother going there as a Thai flagged cargo ship if there's even a chance some IRGC lieutenant will crash out and launch a drone at you. There's no point in bothering, you have no obligation. I love this parallel universe where Iran is begging to open the Strait and offering enormous reparations to the United States to be able to use it again.
What am I reading?
Iran (and its regional partners of, uh, Hezbollah?) has no money to spare to economically develop the United States, which doesn't need it because it's not a third world totalitarian theocratic hellhole that deliberately cut itself off from civilized nations and then got wrecked from the sky.
Their sporadic wiffleball drone strikes while one faction negotiates to make peace and another faction posts AI vids declaring they have sunk the imperialist navy is the begging. Both factions want the Strait open but they can't agree on the way to make it happen.
On August 11 2026 01:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +Wow Iran certainly gave up a lot when they unilaterally broke the MOU by shooting at a Singaporean and Panamanian ship. They figured they could get even more than $300b when they broke the ceasefire. Do you know how bad the USA's position must be if they're giving Iran more money than what was required by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and Iran thought "we can get an even better deal out of this"? They're either insane or right, and judging by the fact that Trump is letting them make nukes now, they're not looking insane.
You're a genius. Your own post has managed to figure out and debunk itself. If even in your own hypothetical Trump would leave now without a nuclear deal AND without paying "muh reparations" then it can't have been the Strait. Then you take 5 seconds, open the MOU, read it, and realize the key framework of the deal was permanent denuclearization forever.
|
On August 11 2026 01:48 oBlade wrote:
You're a genius. Your own post has managed to figure out and debunk itself. If even in your own hypothetical Trump would leave now without a nuclear deal AND without paying "muh reparations" then it can't have been the Strait. Then you take 5 seconds, open the MOU, read it, and realize the key framework of the deal was permanent denuclearization forever.
So before the war, Iran was: sanctioned, nuclear program completely destroyed in 2025 (allegedly), Strait of Hormuz open.
After the MoU, Iran: unsanctioned, $300b richer thanks to your tax dollars, no nuclear program, all so that... the Strait of Hormuz can be open again, like it was before the war.
After Iran broke the MoU because (you allege) the USA kicked their ass so hard: unsanctioned, $300b richer thanks to your tax dollars, WITH a nuclear program, all so that... the Strait of Hormuz can be open again, like it was before the war.
Please Mr. President, this is too much winning, I can't handle all this winning, اللهاکبر.
|
United States44226 Posts
On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months?
Firstly, you don’t believe in Iran. Your stance is that the old nation no longer exists post regime change.
Secondly, the closed strait is a slow escalating burn. They don’t need a new card, the closure does nothing for a while due to the large stockpiles but as those stockpiles are eroded the releases slow and the damage escalates. The assertion that pressure won’t increase is nonsense, it’s constantly increasing.
|
On August 11 2026 01:53 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2026 01:48 oBlade wrote:
You're a genius. Your own post has managed to figure out and debunk itself. If even in your own hypothetical Trump would leave now without a nuclear deal AND without paying "muh reparations" then it can't have been the Strait. Then you take 5 seconds, open the MOU, read it, and realize the key framework of the deal was permanent denuclearization forever. So before the war, Iran was: sanctioned, nuclear program completely destroyed in 2025 (allegedly), Strait of Hormuz open. After the MoU, Iran: unsanctioned, $300b richer thanks to your tax dollars, no nuclear program, all so that... the Strait of Hormuz can be open again, like it was before the war. After Iran broke the MoU because (you allege) the USA kicked their ass so hard: unsanctioned, $300b richer thanks to your tax dollars, WITH a nuclear program, all so that... the Strait of Hormuz can be open again, like it was before the war. Please Mr. President, this is too much winning, I can't handle all this winning, اللهاکبر.
There is no MOU at this point. It's not even worth explaining your repeated, deliberate disinformation misreading of point #6 as some kind of wire transfer cash payment from the US taxpayer to Iran. Which is not only legally impossible for the President to do, it's physically impossible because there's no money to do it with. You cannot possibly be so deluded as to think like some kind of $300 billion check has cleared. You cannot possibly think anyone here is gullible enough to fall for that. Not worth anyone's time.
6. The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.
It's not even worth correcting because there is no MOU now. There just isn't one. What are you even doing?
Iran broke the MOU either because the people negotiating for Iran do not represent the people holding the guns in Iran, because there is no single unified thing called "Iran" which we use as an approximation. Or because the people negotiating and the people holding the guns do represent each other, and they are crazy.
|
On August 11 2026 01:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months? Firstly, you don’t believe in Iran. Your stance is that the old nation no longer exists post regime change. Secondly, the closed strait is a slow escalating burn. They don’t need a new card, the closure does nothing for a while due to the large stockpiles but as those stockpiles are eroded the releases slow and the damage escalates. The assertion that pressure won’t increase is nonsense, it’s constantly increasing.
More time also gives markets more time to adjust. The oil price is not consistent with a slow escalating burn. From the start of the war until the second half of May the price was consistently close to 100 dollars a barrel. It has not breached 90 dollars since even though inventories are much lower right now.
|
On August 10 2026 23:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:21 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2026 23:10 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 00:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Introvert appears to be 100% correct. There is a lot of interest in taxing the rich but once that's done everyone seems to eager to spend that money.
I made Gemini do a little napkin math on the debt problem.
The "solution" is a scenario where the administration lowers the deficit from current levels to 3% over 4 years, then from 3% to 0% over another 4 years and then the US holds at 0% deficit for 20 years.
In scenario one Trump keeps spending on the current trajectory for 2 years and is then immediately replaced with a fiscally responsible administration. So the process begins in 2028 and ends in 2056.
In scenario two Trump is replaced with an administration that keeps spending for another 8 years (that is 10 years of spending on the current trajectory) before being replaced with an administration that reduces the deficit. So the process begins in 2036 and ends in 2064
In scenario three there is another administration with uncontrolled spending for a total of 18 years. So the scenario begins in 2044 and ends in 2072.
Results are as follows:
Tax level when deficit hits 0%:
Scenario 1: 23,5% of GDP or a 32% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 2: 24,8% of GDP or a 39% hike of federal income tax.
Scenario 3: 26,2% of GDP or a 47% hike of federal income tax.
Debt after the process ends:
Scenario 1: 50-53%
Scenario 2: 60-60%
Scenario 3: 70-74%
If never balanced: >175%
Currently the top 1% generates 20% of national income, hold 31% of total US household wealth and pay roughly 25% of all federal taxes (about 4,5% of GDP).
If you want to make only the top 1% pay for only the deficit reduction their tax burden needs to shift from ~4,5% of GDP to between 10,2% to 12,9% depending on scenario. That's an increase between +127% to 187%.
Obviously not achievable by increasing income tax (a little hard to get that above 100%).
To get that kind of revenue from annual wealth tax you would need a tax from 3,5-5,5% on all net worth for the top 1%, or (6-8% annually if you only target people with more than 15mn).
Gemini suggested a 4-5% national wealth tax with top income tax at about 70%.
If these figures are even remotely correct (which they probably are) I think wanting to tax the rich and then spending that money on anything except deficit reduction is like anticipating a raise from work and then immediately blowing that on travel and takeout when you have a fat mortgage and two maxed out credit cards.
It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. + Show Spoiler +
I explained my stance, you as every dishonest actor ever are just moving goalposts.
Well, whether you reply or not, I think it's pretty obvious that your hand-wringing and cosplaying being against what is happening in USA is performative + Show Spoiler +, you don't really need to reply that you'd vote to keep Trump in power based on red scare style propaganda that has consumed your brain for that much to be obvious. Another day, another hypocrite trying to hide who they are. Who here do you think this doesn't apply to? Micronesia seems like a great example, there are many other US based posters who are pragmatic and consistent in their stances and views on how to put an end to the rise of fascism in the USA. You, on the other hand would definitely, in my book, fall under the performative category since you don't really seem to care enough to focus on the actual problem and only want to push your pet issues and pursuit revenge against the Democrat party. So "pragmatic and consistent stances" (those seem like somewhat conflicting traits?) is how you distinguish opposition to the rise of fascism in the US from those just doing so performatively? Based on that you identified dyhb as a performative hypocrite. You sure that's what you want to go with?
Yeah.
A pragmatic person, even if they have deep distaste of who a candidate associates with, if this candidate is from the only viable opposition party and this party has nominated them, will tow the party line and, especially when faced with fascism happily vote (or say that they would) for the candidate they perceive as problematic.
Someone who is a liar or a hypocrite will write low quality posts trying to present themselves as victims of injustice instead of answering a simple question.
This stance (vote blue no matter who in the face of fascism) is the only pragmatic stance, if you or anyone else can't hold it consistently you only oppose fascism performatively.
This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.
|
On August 11 2026 02:16 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2026 23:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2026 23:21 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2026 23:10 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 10 2026 02:21 dyhb wrote:
[quote]It will be painful for most Americans and that really can’t be sold to voters in today’s climate. The same goes for the spending side. So what gets pitched is increasing taxes on just the rich, or ignoring it entirely. Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077. There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. + Show Spoiler +
I explained my stance, you as every dishonest actor ever are just moving goalposts.
Well, whether you reply or not, I think it's pretty obvious that your hand-wringing and cosplaying being against what is happening in USA is performative + Show Spoiler +, you don't really need to reply that you'd vote to keep Trump in power based on red scare style propaganda that has consumed your brain for that much to be obvious. Another day, another hypocrite trying to hide who they are. Who here do you think this doesn't apply to? Micronesia seems like a great example, there are many other US based posters who are pragmatic and consistent in their stances and views on how to put an end to the rise of fascism in the USA. You, on the other hand would definitely, in my book, fall under the performative category since you don't really seem to care enough to focus on the actual problem and only want to push your pet issues and pursuit revenge against the Democrat party. So "pragmatic and consistent stances" (those seem like somewhat conflicting traits?) is how you distinguish opposition to the rise of fascism in the US from those just doing so performatively? Based on that you identified dyhb as a performative hypocrite. You sure that's what you want to go with? Yeah. A pragmatic person, even if they have deep distaste of who a candidate associates with, if this candidate is from the only viable opposition party and this party has nominated them, will tow the party line and, especially when faced with fascism happily vote (or say that they would) for the candidate they perceive as problematic. Someone who is a liar or a hypocrite will write low quality posts trying to present themselves as victims of injustice instead of answering a simple question. This stance (vote blue no matter who in the face of fascism) is the only pragmatic stance, if you or anyone else can't hold it consistently you only oppose fascism performatively. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.
It's not hard to understand. It's petty and stupid.
Saying "I'd vote blue no matter who" is quintessential performative opposition to fascism. Nevertheless, everyone pissing and moaning about dyhb is eventually going to demand everyone fall in line behind dyhb's "performative opposition to fascism" because dyhb's perspective more closely aligns with the leadership of Democrats' party.
Any reasonable analysis of US political history recognizes that voting is incidental to significant political progress anyway. That means if you're not even an active member of the Democrats' party (which afaict no one here claims to be), it's pretty asinine to be here performatively pretending one is opposing fascism through supporting Democrats/advocating "vote blue no matter who".
|
On August 11 2026 01:28 LightSpectra wrote:
300 something words and still no answer to a question that requires 1. Since you got a word count but missed the message, maybe I'll help by posting key parts: "I'm just going to call you a liar and call your real concerns performative. You're not worth engaging with, you're only worth dismissing."
(One second later) "Hey, guy I just called a liar and dismissed everything you said, I have questions for you!!! Stop dodging!" But you can't act curious about my views while simultaneously writing them off as performative and insincere. You can't have it both ways. The bar is intentionally low and I have faith that you can clear it if and when you decide to stop trolling. Or when you're more interested, because I gather that the cognitive dissonance partially stems from a lack of interest. Remember that you don't have to accept everything the person is saying just to have a conversation with them.
On August 11 2026 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
Saying "I'd vote blue no matter who" is quintessential performative opposition to fascism. Nevertheless, everyone pissing and moaning about dyhb is eventually going to demand everyone fall in line behind dyhb's "performative opposition to fascism" because dyhb's perspective more closely aligns with the leadership of Democrats' party. I don't even know if more far-left people would stay home if a too-moderate candidate was selected compared to moderate dems staying home if a too-extreme candidate is selected. All this Gaza genocide stuff has me wondering if the left wing of the party would rather not vote or go third party than be personally complicit in the genocide. Then there's also the power relationship on the wing that's willing to walk away from the deal possessing extra power in negotiating the deal (or the next deal).
I don't agree with any of your discourse on "performative opposition to fascism" as you talk about it, but that's definitely not worth getting into.
|
United States44226 Posts
On August 11 2026 02:16 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2026 01:54 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months? Firstly, you don’t believe in Iran. Your stance is that the old nation no longer exists post regime change. Secondly, the closed strait is a slow escalating burn. They don’t need a new card, the closure does nothing for a while due to the large stockpiles but as those stockpiles are eroded the releases slow and the damage escalates. The assertion that pressure won’t increase is nonsense, it’s constantly increasing. More time also gives markets more time to adjust. The oil price is not consistent with a slow escalating burn. From the start of the war until the second half of May the price was consistently close to 100 dollars a barrel. It has not breached 90 dollars since even though inventories are much lower right now.
Look at the US SPR graph if you want to see why it went down in May. The price goes up when releases slow and goes down when they increase.
If we imagine a scenario where each week 2% of whatever remains is released then we would see what you expect, a slow rise. But that’s not how the releases have been done.
My argument was that the pressure increases over time as stocks are drawn down, not necessarily the price. Let's say tomorrow Trump went crazy and decided to sell from the SPR to any buyer for $50/barrel. The price would sharply drop but the pressure would sharply increase as the timeline on the impending emergency changed. You can't equate oil price to pressure 1:1.
|
Interesting development in the road up to the upcoming Israeli elections and US midterm elections:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected President Trump’s plan to establish permanent peace in Gaza, a rare public break with the U.S. leader, who just weeks ago hailed “a historic agreement” to disarm Hamas.
The plan calls for the militant group to lay down arms in tandem with the gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from the enclave, which the Israeli leader said Sunday couldn’t happen until Hamas was fully disarmed.
Netanyahu’s decision, spelled out in a government meeting and video statement, risks angering Trump, with whom he has had fractious relations behind the scenes for months. The collapse of the peace process in Gaza would rob Trump of what his administration has described as a major foreign-policy achievement of his second term at the same time as the president is embroiled in the Iran war.
Netanyahu, who has come under pressure from the Trump administration to agree to the deal to disarm Hamas, also faces uphill elections in the fall and his hard-right coalition partners have vociferously objected to the terms of the agreement. “Israel rejects the 15-point document. The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed. And when I say the disarmament of Hamas, I mean heavy weapons, less heavy weapons, light weapons, all the weapons,” Netanyahu said at the opening of an Israeli cabinet meeting, using an abbreviation for the Israeli military. WSJ
Withdrawal prior to disarmament appears to be the sticking point.
|
On August 11 2026 02:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2026 02:16 RvB wrote:On August 11 2026 01:54 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months? Firstly, you don’t believe in Iran. Your stance is that the old nation no longer exists post regime change. Secondly, the closed strait is a slow escalating burn. They don’t need a new card, the closure does nothing for a while due to the large stockpiles but as those stockpiles are eroded the releases slow and the damage escalates. The assertion that pressure won’t increase is nonsense, it’s constantly increasing. More time also gives markets more time to adjust. The oil price is not consistent with a slow escalating burn. From the start of the war until the second half of May the price was consistently close to 100 dollars a barrel. It has not breached 90 dollars since even though inventories are much lower right now. Look at the US SPR graph if you want to see why it went down in May. The price goes up when releases slow and goes down when they increase. If we imagine a scenario where each week 2% of whatever remains is released then we would see what you expect, a slow rise. But that’s not how the releases have been done.
The market is also betting on Trump capitulating whenever it gets to bad. And this is the safest bet by far given his history.
|
On August 11 2026 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2026 02:16 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 23:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2026 23:21 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2026 23:10 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 03:22 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
[quote]
Ignore it for too long and either GH finds himself on the side of a majority of Americans or you end up in Cyberpunk 2077.
There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. + Show Spoiler +
I explained my stance, you as every dishonest actor ever are just moving goalposts.
Well, whether you reply or not, I think it's pretty obvious that your hand-wringing and cosplaying being against what is happening in USA is performative + Show Spoiler +, you don't really need to reply that you'd vote to keep Trump in power based on red scare style propaganda that has consumed your brain for that much to be obvious. Another day, another hypocrite trying to hide who they are. Who here do you think this doesn't apply to? Micronesia seems like a great example, there are many other US based posters who are pragmatic and consistent in their stances and views on how to put an end to the rise of fascism in the USA. You, on the other hand would definitely, in my book, fall under the performative category since you don't really seem to care enough to focus on the actual problem and only want to push your pet issues and pursuit revenge against the Democrat party. So "pragmatic and consistent stances" (those seem like somewhat conflicting traits?) is how you distinguish opposition to the rise of fascism in the US from those just doing so performatively? Based on that you identified dyhb as a performative hypocrite. You sure that's what you want to go with? Yeah. A pragmatic person, even if they have deep distaste of who a candidate associates with, if this candidate is from the only viable opposition party and this party has nominated them, will tow the party line and, especially when faced with fascism happily vote (or say that they would) for the candidate they perceive as problematic. Someone who is a liar or a hypocrite will write low quality posts trying to present themselves as victims of injustice instead of answering a simple question. This stance (vote blue no matter who in the face of fascism) is the only pragmatic stance, if you or anyone else can't hold it consistently you only oppose fascism performatively. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand. It's not hard to understand. It's petty and stupid. Saying "I'd vote blue no matter who" is quintessential performative opposition to fascism. Nevertheless, everyone pissing and moaning about dyhb is eventually going to demand everyone fall in line behind dyhb's "performative opposition to fascism" because dyhb's perspective more closely aligns with the leadership of Democrats' party. Any reasonable analysis of US political history recognizes that voting is incidental to significant political progress anyway. That means if you're not even an active member of the Democrats' party (which afaict no one here claims to be), it's pretty asinine to be here performatively pretending one is opposing fascism through supporting Democrats/advocating "vote blue no matter who".
Ah, yes, here we go, right in the crux of the issue, the fact that you, deep down understand that your hand wringing is actually performative and the rage you feel when you start understanding that above anything else, the most concrete thing you, as an American, can do to help your country not be a fascist shitthole is to vote and organize for Democrats.
And of course that makes you lash out, mock, gawk and even play lawyer for bad faith actors, because you can't do that, you are a spurned lover who can't get over yourself in order to actually be useful to the project of democracy and humanism, your own ego and deeply held belief that you are right is much more important to you then anyone else's well being, and this is what you, oBlade and dyhb have in common.
|
On August 11 2026 03:02 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2026 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 11 2026 02:16 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 23:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2026 23:21 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2026 23:10 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 22:50 dyhb wrote:On August 10 2026 22:01 Jankisa wrote:On August 10 2026 03:23 dyhb wrote:
[quote]There's absolutely a scenario where this happens. Hey mate, can't help but notice that you went quite for a bit after I answered your question which you demanded before you'd answer mine, so let's try again: "If you lived in Michigan, who would you vote for in the Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed or Mike Rogers?" The post you ignored was on El-Sayed’s quotes and Hasan Piker’s involvement in the race that made both primary candidates unpalatable to me. You dodged with some pretty comical and unexplained “McCarthyism” and “Israelmaxxing” non-sequiturs, but perhaps you’re now ready to actually reply to my post. If that is beyond you still, then I will also wait until you’re ready in the interests of rewarding dialogue and not trolling. + Show Spoiler +
I explained my stance, you as every dishonest actor ever are just moving goalposts.
Well, whether you reply or not, I think it's pretty obvious that your hand-wringing and cosplaying being against what is happening in USA is performative + Show Spoiler +, you don't really need to reply that you'd vote to keep Trump in power based on red scare style propaganda that has consumed your brain for that much to be obvious. Another day, another hypocrite trying to hide who they are. Who here do you think this doesn't apply to? Micronesia seems like a great example, there are many other US based posters who are pragmatic and consistent in their stances and views on how to put an end to the rise of fascism in the USA. You, on the other hand would definitely, in my book, fall under the performative category since you don't really seem to care enough to focus on the actual problem and only want to push your pet issues and pursuit revenge against the Democrat party. So "pragmatic and consistent stances" (those seem like somewhat conflicting traits?) is how you distinguish opposition to the rise of fascism in the US from those just doing so performatively? Based on that you identified dyhb as a performative hypocrite. You sure that's what you want to go with? Yeah. A pragmatic person, even if they have deep distaste of who a candidate associates with, if this candidate is from the only viable opposition party and this party has nominated them, will tow the party line and, especially when faced with fascism happily vote (or say that they would) for the candidate they perceive as problematic. Someone who is a liar or a hypocrite will write low quality posts trying to present themselves as victims of injustice instead of answering a simple question. This stance (vote blue no matter who in the face of fascism) is the only pragmatic stance, if you or anyone else can't hold it consistently you only oppose fascism performatively. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand. It's not hard to understand. It's petty and stupid. Saying "I'd vote blue no matter who" is quintessential performative opposition to fascism. Nevertheless, everyone pissing and moaning about dyhb is eventually going to demand everyone fall in line behind dyhb's "performative opposition to fascism" because dyhb's perspective more closely aligns with the leadership of Democrats' party. Any reasonable analysis of US political history recognizes that voting is incidental to significant political progress anyway. That means if you're not even an active member of the Democrats' party (which afaict no one here claims to be), it's pretty asinine to be here performatively pretending one is opposing fascism through supporting Democrats/advocating "vote blue no matter who". Ah, yes, here we go, right in the crux of the issue, the fact that you, deep down understand that your hand wringing is actually performative and the rage you feel when you start understanding that above anything else, the most concrete thing you, as an American, can do to help your country not be a fascist shitthole is to vote and organize for Democrats. + Show Spoiler +And of course that makes you lash out, mock, gawk and even play lawyer for bad faith actors, because you can't do that, you are a spurned lover who can't get over yourself in order to actually be useful to the project of democracy and humanism, your own ego and deeply held belief that you are right is much more important to you then anyone else's well being, and this is what you, oBlade and dyhb have in common.
That's just factually wrong. I learned that, in part, the hard way after over a decade of more organizing and supporting of Democrats than anyone here has ever claimed. That, combined with learning more about decades/centuries of the history from the generations of others that also learned those same sort of lessons the hard ways.
Shitposting with oBlade and spamming variations of "vote blue no matter who is the only option" is exactly the kinds of performative opposition the fascists need you all to do for them to keep winning (regardless of who wins the elections).
|
On August 11 2026 02:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2026 02:16 RvB wrote:On August 11 2026 01:54 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2026 23:12 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On August 10 2026 18:58 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2026 09:10 Billyboy wrote:I wonder if Republicans are getting tired of winning so hard yet, Tehran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran and its regional allies, end the blockade of Iran’s ports, remove US military forces around Iran, lift US sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets and compensate for war damages. Imagine still believing that Trump was the better choice. Has anyone ever lost a way harder that they started and had every advantage? It’s actually wild. Oh wow well if Tehran is "demanding" it that's pretty bad since if Tehran demands something everyone just has to do it, I mean it's Tehran after all. And when their demands aren't met, what exactly will happen? I would presume the US will keep spending bombs and interceptors plus the billions on force posturing they are unwilling to use until the economic and political pressure is too much for Donnie and he capitulates and declares victory. And mush brains like you will cheer for him. Your guess? You just told me Iran is demanding the US end its attacks on Iran, and that if the US doesn't, then the US will use bombs on Iran. That's definitionally what would happen. I already got that part. Iran has nothing attached to these demands? "Meet our demands by... never... or else we will do... nothing." What remaining card are they going to play and why were they so generous as to not play it in the last 6 months? Firstly, you don’t believe in Iran. Your stance is that the old nation no longer exists post regime change. Secondly, the closed strait is a slow escalating burn. They don’t need a new card, the closure does nothing for a while due to the large stockpiles but as those stockpiles are eroded the releases slow and the damage escalates. The assertion that pressure won’t increase is nonsense, it’s constantly increasing. More time also gives markets more time to adjust. The oil price is not consistent with a slow escalating burn. From the start of the war until the second half of May the price was consistently close to 100 dollars a barrel. It has not breached 90 dollars since even though inventories are much lower right now. Look at the US SPR graph if you want to see why it went down in May. The price goes up when releases slow and goes down when they increase. If we imagine a scenario where each week 2% of whatever remains is released then we would see what you expect, a slow rise. But that’s not how the releases have been done. My argument was that the pressure increases over time as stocks are drawn down, not necessarily the price. Let's say tomorrow Trump went crazy and decided to sell from the SPR to any buyer for $50/barrel. The price would sharply drop but the pressure would sharply increase as the timeline on the impending emergency changed. You can't equate oil price to pressure 1:1.
Take a look at how large oil markets are and compare it to the strategic reserves. They're not nearly enough to cause price movements like that for any significant amount of time. It helps at the margin and can prevent large price spikes. An increase in production by other producers and a very large reduction in demand are much bigger factors.
|
On August 11 2026 02:51 dyhb wrote:Interesting development in the road up to the upcoming Israeli elections and US midterm elections: Show nested quote +Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected President Trump’s plan to establish permanent peace in Gaza, a rare public break with the U.S. leader, who just weeks ago hailed “a historic agreement” to disarm Hamas.
The plan calls for the militant group to lay down arms in tandem with the gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from the enclave, which the Israeli leader said Sunday couldn’t happen until Hamas was fully disarmed.
Netanyahu’s decision, spelled out in a government meeting and video statement, risks angering Trump, with whom he has had fractious relations behind the scenes for months. The collapse of the peace process in Gaza would rob Trump of what his administration has described as a major foreign-policy achievement of his second term at the same time as the president is embroiled in the Iran war.
Netanyahu, who has come under pressure from the Trump administration to agree to the deal to disarm Hamas, also faces uphill elections in the fall and his hard-right coalition partners have vociferously objected to the terms of the agreement. Show nested quote +“Israel rejects the 15-point document. The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed. And when I say the disarmament of Hamas, I mean heavy weapons, less heavy weapons, light weapons, all the weapons,” Netanyahu said at the opening of an Israeli cabinet meeting, using an abbreviation for the Israeli military. WSJWithdrawal prior to disarmament appears to be the sticking point. Netanyahu has sabotaged or rejected every single peace negotiation in the region.
It is as interesting a development as the sun rising tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
