Political Posts

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, Hektor said:

+1

 

You left out the elephant (errr...the dragon) in the room....China

 

If you mean risk of People’ Republic of Dragons doing a military power play in Syria. That is highly unlikely. 

Although we may associate PRC with potential military adventurism in Taiwan, historically they have not gone far from their water. They have their naval bases in the southern hemisphere, but I don’t see them doing imperial adventurism. 
 

China does not waste resources doing nation shaping far from mainland. It deals directly with established regional powers, namely Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE. 

 

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Just like we give criticism to Trump like there is no tomorrow, we must give the American strongman, praise when it is due. 
 

I thought removing sanctions from Syria was a great move. Fresh start for the new Syria. Now it is up to Damascus to prove itself. 
 

A strong Syria means one that is not susceptible to malign Russian, Iranian and Israeli influence, and their expansionist agenda.  
l

I agree on Syria- give the new regime a shot. You can always put the sanctions back on if it doesn’t not work out.

Edited May 14, 2025 by Spekulatius

[LC]

1 hour ago, nsx5200 said:

Didn't do too deep of a dive, but it seems like these are just deals to turn them into witnesses.  A bit of sensational and mis-leading tweet, IMHO.

 

Just calling out the disparity. Apparently Dems were soft on crime & immigration, and Reps would point to these types of plea deals as evidence. Now the shoe is on the other foot. 

 

Plus I thought we were taking a rock-solid stance against fentanyl from bad hombres. Well, nobody actually believed that but you get the point.

 

And you know, it's so great that cartel members and their family are given judicial due process. Meanwhile ICE deports US citizens and legal immigrants to El Salvador without due process.

Edited May 14, 2025 by LC

[Hektor]

6 hours ago, Xerxes said:

If you mean risk of People’ Republic of Dragons doing a military power play in Syria. That is highly unlikely. 

Although we may associate PRC with potential military adventurism in Taiwan, historically they have not gone far from their water. They have their naval bases in the southern hemisphere, but I don’t see them doing imperial adventurism. 
 

China does not waste resources doing nation shaping far from mainland. It deals directly with established regional powers, namely Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE. 

Wouldn't they do something similar to their involvement in Sudan?

Edited May 14, 2025 by Hektor

[Xerxes]

50 minutes ago, Hektor said:

Wouldn't they could do something similar to their involvement in Sudan?

I was not aware of their involvement in Sudan. I know they have presence in Djibouti. 
 

The prime trouble maker in Sudan are UAE, it’s frenemy Saudi Arabia support the other side. And I forgot on which side Turkey is; but is another player who wants its former Ottoman port on the Red Sea in its sphere. 

[Spooky]

21 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

the boomer's parents saved for a rainy day, didn't overspend their income AND fought for the freedom of their kids on the beaches of Normandy, North Africa and the Pacific......the boomers today are fighting chlamydia on the beaches of Florida while they vote theirs kids futures away.

 

Hilarious! The GOP tax bill floating around is a travesty. Blow out the deficit by $2.5 trillion more over the next decade for tax cuts. I would be so mad if I was a young US taxpayer that needs to shoulder the debt burden in the future.

[mattee2264]

Interesting what Trump did in the Middle East. Looks as though NVIDIA chips will be used as bargaining chips in the trade deals intended to be struck over the next year or so. 

 

 

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, Spooky said:

Hilarious! The GOP tax bill floating around is a travesty. Blow out the deficit by $2.5 trillion more over the next decade for tax cuts. I would be so mad if I was a young US taxpayer that needs to shoulder the debt burden in the future.

 

Been leafing through it.....big picture you've got ~$1.75trn of expenditure cuts and lets call it $4trn of revenue reductions (tax cuts) over ten years....how does the math, math......what Captain Chaos and GOP want you to believe in all this....is that United States already at full employment AND with immigration effectively turned off such that the underlying poor demographics of the United States take hold again.... that THIS economy can GROW sustainably at a 3% CAGR starting basically right now......if it doesn't.....well the budgetary math starts getting out of control.

 

Instead of going after entitlements (as they need too to actually fix the budget) they figured out how to make the entitlement problem even worse by exempting social security payments from tax.....pretty damn nifty way to transfer from the young to the old again.

 

Can't remember where I read it but I'm starting to come around to the theory that democracies only work in a demographically health society that is growing.....when you start getting an inverted pyramid in a low trust society like we have....the old people start voting themselves incremental resources at the expense of the young (& unborn). When you look around at folks in their 20's, 30', early 40's with the affordability & availability issues in education, housing, health and childcare.....and you then realize who driving the bus in terms of poltical leadership.....you quickly realize whats happening.....what is nimbyism except an artificially created short squeeze on housing such that the aged housing holder can experience higher returns to their assets via manufactured scarcity.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2025 by changegonnacome

[Blake Hampton]

I call this one the Tree of Congress:

 

[Blake Hampton]

Jerome Powell doesn't like the tree:

 

[patience_and_focus]

5 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I agree on Syria- give the new regime a shot. You can always put the sanctions back on if it doesn’t not work out.

Are you sure we are not going to be making a similar (not the exact same obviously) mistake like when we were buddies with someone starting with Osama to triangulate our foreign policy objectives in the 80s? After all the Syrian guy in question had a 10 million bounty on his head not long ago and was / is the leader of a Jehadi unit? Are these guys rehabilitated now?

[james22]

7 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Just like we give criticism to Trump like there is no tomorrow, we must give the American strongman, praise when it is due. 
 

I thought removing sanctions from Syria was a great move. Fresh start for the new Syria. Now it is up to Damascus to prove itself. 
 

A strong Syria means one that is not susceptible to malign Russian, Iranian and Israeli influence, and their expansionist agenda.  

 

An 'Only Trump could do this' move.

 

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2025/05/14/trump-shocks-the-world-again-n4939759

 

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2025/05/13/trump-giving-the-new-syrian-boss-rope-to-hang-himself-withor-not-n3802743

[james22]

3 minutes ago, patience_and_focus said:

Are you sure we are not going to be making a similar (not the exact same obviously) mistake like when we were buddies with someone starting with Osama to triangulate our foreign policy objectives in the 80s? After all the Syrian guy in question had a 10 million bounty on his head not long ago and was / is the leader of a Jehadi unit? Are these guys rehabilitated now?

 

Don't overthink it.

 

Spekulatius has it right, course correct based on actions (not hopes).

[james22]

Einhorn mentioned this in an interview today.

 

Greenlight also started shorting, or betting against, "consumer companies that cater to liberal tastes," it said in a note. It didn't specify which companies it shorted.

 

Surveys show Democrats as more pessimistic than Republicans and likely to spend less, and the Trump administration is cutting jobs in areas like scientific research, government contracting and the civil service that are disproportionately held by Democrats, Greenlight said.

 

https://archive.ph/ESmwL#selection-955.0-967.267

 

 

I'm not a fan of the Economist, but it's an interesting read.

 

 

 

Why do MAGA companies seem to outperform? Maybe they eschew virtue-signalling.

 

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/05/13/why-the-maga-economy-is-thriving

[Gregmal]

26 minutes ago, james22 said:

Einhorn mentioned this in an interview today.

 

Greenlight also started shorting, or betting against, "consumer companies that cater to liberal tastes," it said in a note. It didn't specify which companies it shorted.

 

Surveys show Democrats as more pessimistic than Republicans and likely to spend less, and the Trump administration is cutting jobs in areas like scientific research, government contracting and the civil service that are disproportionately held by Democrats, Greenlight said.

 

https://archive.ph/ESmwL#selection-955.0-967.267

 

 

I'm not a fan of the Economist, but it's an interesting read.

 

 

 

Why do MAGA companies seem to outperform? Maybe they eschew virtue-signalling.

 

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/05/13/why-the-maga-economy-is-thriving

Yup, things are booming in FL right now

[patience_and_focus]

45 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Don't overthink it.

 

Spekulatius has it right, course correct based on actions (not hopes).

 

Gotcha!  Maybe this time will be a charm. In the meantime, here is a little background on this guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_al-Sharaa)

 

"Once in Iraq, al-Sharaa quickly rose through the ranks of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).[19] The Times of Israel newspaper claimed in 2013 that al-Sharaa was a close associate of AQI leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.[22] In his 2021 interview with Frontline, al-Sharaa denied ever meeting al-Zarqawi and asserted that he served only as a regular foot-soldier under al-Qaeda against American occupation.[23] The Economist reported in 2025 that Iraqi intelligence believed al-Sharaa was Zarqawi's deputy in 2004..."

[Xerxes]

59 minutes ago, patience_and_focus said:

Are you sure we are not going to be making a similar (not the exact same obviously) mistake like when we were buddies with someone starting with Osama to triangulate our foreign policy objectives in the 80s? After all the Syrian guy in question had a 10 million bounty on his head not long ago and was / is the leader of a Jehadi unit? Are these guys rehabilitated now?

 

As rehabilitated as the Nazi scientists were when they started working for US Government post 1945 

 

One can either be stuck in the past or move forward 

[backtothebeach]

trump-giving-the-new-syrian-boss-rope-to-hang-himself-withor-not

 

I thought Trump literally gave the guy a rope as a present and said it is up to you what you do with it, don’t fuck with me, lol.

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, patience_and_focus said:

Are you sure we are not going to be making a similar (not the exact same obviously) mistake like when we were buddies with someone starting with Osama to triangulate our foreign policy objectives in the 80s? After all the Syrian guy in question had a 10 million bounty on his head not long ago and was / is the leader of a Jehadi unit? Are these guys rehabilitated now?

I am not sure about what is happening on Syria, but lifting sanctions does not mean we deliver tons of aid or weapons. Lifting sanction means we give them a shot, not more and more less and I think that’s the right approach.

[Hektor]

Interesting take on India, China, Pakistan, Donald Trump, grift and Nobel Prize!

[Parsad]

On 5/13/2025 at 11:35 AM, DooDiligence said:

Anyone remember the Arabian Gulf war?

 

LOL!  You make me cry!    Cheers!

[Parsad]

On 5/13/2025 at 12:12 PM, james22 said:

Anyone remember the Left's insistence on renaming everything?

 

Tearing down statues?

 

Doo has a point...so in every Western newspaper and media outlet, including Fox and NY Post, they called it nothing but the Persian Gulf War for years. 

 

Yet somehow in your years in Saudi Arabia, they called it nothing but the Arabian Gulf.  You must have been watching nothing but Al Jazeera! 

 

Even Wikipedia has numerous names for it, but none are "Arabian Gulf War".  Cheers!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

[Xerxes]

When asking Grok :

 

Did Saudi Arabia bought all their 2017 commitment to Trump

—///////————-

 

In 2017, during President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the kingdom announced a $110 billion arms deal with the United States, with potential expansion to $350 billion over 10 years. This was part of a broader $400 billion investment pledge, including defense and non-defense sectors like infrastructure and technology. The question of whether Saudi Arabia fulfilled its 2017 commitment requires examining the arms deal’s implementation and the broader investment promises.

 

Status of the 2017 Arms Deal

•  Initial Commitment: The $110 billion deal included agreements for weapons, equipment, and services, such as Lockheed Martin’s THAAD missile defense systems, Boeing helicopters, and General Dynamics armored vehicles. It was framed as immediate sales, with an additional $240 billion in potential sales over a decade.

•  Actual Implementation:

•  By 2018, reports indicated that only $14.5 billion in contracts had been finalized, per the U.S. State Department. Many of the announced deals were non-binding letters of intent or rehashed existing agreements from the Obama era.

•  A 2019 analysis by the Center for International Policy found that Saudi Arabia had signed contracts for about $28 billion in arms by mid-2019, far short of the $110 billion touted.

•  Specific deliveries included:

•  $13.5 billion for THAAD systems (Lockheed Martin), with initial deliveries in 2020.

•  $5.4 billion for Patriot missile systems (Raytheon).

•  Smaller contracts for helicopters, naval vessels, and munitions.

•  By 2023, the Brookings Institution estimated that roughly $36 billion in arms sales had been implemented, with delays due to congressional scrutiny, production timelines, and Saudi Arabia’s financial constraints.

•  Challenges:

•  Congressional Opposition: Concerns over Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, the Yemen war, and the 2018 Jamal Khashoggi murder led to bipartisan efforts to block some arms sales, though Trump often bypassed Congress using emergency declarations.

•  Financial Constraints: Saudi Arabia’s budget deficits, driven by low oil prices (e.g., Brent crude averaged $40-$50/barrel in 2017-2020) and Vision 2030 spending, limited its ability to fund large-scale purchases.

•  Overstated Figures: Critics, including the Washington Post and Reuters, noted that the $110 billion figure was inflated, combining firm contracts, potential sales, and non-binding agreements.

 

Broader $400 Billion Investment Pledge

•  The $400 billion commitment included non-defense investments, such as:

•  $50 billion by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) in U.S. firms like Blackstone and SoftBank’s Vision Fund.

•  $20 billion for infrastructure projects with General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and others.

•  Energy and technology deals with companies like Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil.

•  Progress:

•  Some investments materialized, such as:

•  $20 billion in Blackstone’s U.S. infrastructure fund (2017).

•  $45 billion in SoftBank’s Vision Fund, which invested in U.S. tech firms like Uber and WeWork.

•  Smaller energy deals, including a $7 billion petrochemical project with Dow Chemical.

•  However, the total fell far short of $400 billion. By 2020, estimates suggested $50-$100 billion in actual investments, with many projects stalled or scaled back due to Saudi Arabia’s fiscal challenges and global economic disruptions (e.g., COVID-19).

•  The Saudi government’s need for oil prices above $80-$100/barrel to balance its budget (compared to actual prices often below $70) constrained its ability to meet ambitious pledges.

 

Why the Full Commitment Wasn’t Met

•  Economic Realities: Saudi Arabia’s reliance on oil revenue and budget deficits (e.g., a $79 billion deficit in 2020) limited its purchasing power.

•  Political Hurdles: U.S. congressional pushback and international criticism over Yemen and human rights slowed arms deals.

•  Exaggerated Announcements: The Trump administration and Saudi Arabia overstated the deal’s scope for political optics, with many “commitments” lacking firm contracts.

•  Geopolitical Shifts: Tensions with the Biden administration, which paused some arms sales in 2021, and Saudi Arabia’s diversification of suppliers (e.g., Russia, China) reduced reliance on U.S. deals.

 

Current Context (2025)

•  The 2017 commitment remains partially fulfilled, with arms sales likely totaling $40-$50 billion by 2025, based on historical trends and recent analyses.

•  The new $142 billion defense deal announced on May 13, 2025, during Trump’s second term, builds on the 2017 framework but is a distinct agreement. It includes new systems (e.g., MQ-9B drones, Patriot upgrades) and overlaps with some undelivered portions of the 2017 deal.

•  Saudi Arabia’s ability to meet the 2025 commitment faces similar challenges: oil prices (Brent crude at $64.77 on May 12, 2025, vs. a needed $96-$98/barrel), domestic spending pressures, and U.S. congressional oversight.

 

Conclusion

Saudi Arabia did not fully buy into its 2017 $110 billion arms commitment, with roughly $40-$50 billion in arms contracts implemented by 2025. The broader $400 billion investment pledge also fell short, with $50-$100 billion realized. Economic constraints, political obstacles, and overstated figures contributed to the shortfall. The 2025 $142 billion deal represents a renewed effort, but its success will depend on similar factors.

Sources: Reuters, Washington Post, Center for International Policy, Brookings Institution, U.S. State Department reports, and X posts (treated as inconclusive).

If you want details on specific 2017 contracts or comparisons with the 2025 deal, let me know!

[james22]

1 hour ago, Parsad said:

Doo has a point...so in every Western newspaper and media outlet, including Fox and NY Post, they called it nothing but the Persian Gulf War for years. 

 

Yet somehow in your years in Saudi Arabia, they called it nothing but the Arabian Gulf.  You must have been watching nothing but Al Jazeera! 

 

Even Wikipedia has numerous names for it, but none are "Arabian Gulf War".  Cheers!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

 

You don't believe Saudis know the Gulf (and the Gulf War) as something different than how Western newspapers, media outlets, and Wikipedia refer to it??

 

Liberation of Kuwait (Arabic: تحرير الكويت) (taḥrīr al-kuwayt) is the term used by Kuwait and most of the coalition's Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. 

 

And again, how does renaming the Gulf of Mexico and the Persian Gulf compare to the Biden administration's renaming of many hundreds of sites? And the Left's tearing down of statues?

[cubsfan]

50 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

When asking Grok :

 

Did Saudi Arabia bought all their 2017 commitment to Trump

—///////————-

 

In 2017, during President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the kingdom announced a $110 billion arms deal with the United States, with potential expansion to $350 billion over 10 years. This was part of a broader $400 billion investment pledge, including defense and non-defense sectors like infrastructure and technology. The question of whether Saudi Arabia fulfilled its 2017 commitment requires examining the arms deal’s implementation and the broader investment promises.

 

Status of the 2017 Arms Deal

•  Initial Commitment: The $110 billion deal included agreements for weapons, equipment, and services, such as Lockheed Martin’s THAAD missile defense systems, Boeing helicopters, and General Dynamics armored vehicles. It was framed as immediate sales, with an additional $240 billion in potential sales over a decade.

•  Actual Implementation:

•  By 2018, reports indicated that only $14.5 billion in contracts had been finalized, per the U.S. State Department. Many of the announced deals were non-binding letters of intent or rehashed existing agreements from the Obama era.

•  A 2019 analysis by the Center for International Policy found that Saudi Arabia had signed contracts for about $28 billion in arms by mid-2019, far short of the $110 billion touted.

•  Specific deliveries included:

•  $13.5 billion for THAAD systems (Lockheed Martin), with initial deliveries in 2020.

•  $5.4 billion for Patriot missile systems (Raytheon).

•  Smaller contracts for helicopters, naval vessels, and munitions.

•  By 2023, the Brookings Institution estimated that roughly $36 billion in arms sales had been implemented, with delays due to congressional scrutiny, production timelines, and Saudi Arabia’s financial constraints.

•  Challenges:

•  Congressional Opposition: Concerns over Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, the Yemen war, and the 2018 Jamal Khashoggi murder led to bipartisan efforts to block some arms sales, though Trump often bypassed Congress using emergency declarations.

•  Financial Constraints: Saudi Arabia’s budget deficits, driven by low oil prices (e.g., Brent crude averaged $40-$50/barrel in 2017-2020) and Vision 2030 spending, limited its ability to fund large-scale purchases.

•  Overstated Figures: Critics, including the Washington Post and Reuters, noted that the $110 billion figure was inflated, combining firm contracts, potential sales, and non-binding agreements.

 

Broader $400 Billion Investment Pledge

•  The $400 billion commitment included non-defense investments, such as:

•  $50 billion by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) in U.S. firms like Blackstone and SoftBank’s Vision Fund.

•  $20 billion for infrastructure projects with General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and others.

•  Energy and technology deals with companies like Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil.

•  Progress:

•  Some investments materialized, such as:

•  $20 billion in Blackstone’s U.S. infrastructure fund (2017).

•  $45 billion in SoftBank’s Vision Fund, which invested in U.S. tech firms like Uber and WeWork.

•  Smaller energy deals, including a $7 billion petrochemical project with Dow Chemical.

•  However, the total fell far short of $400 billion. By 2020, estimates suggested $50-$100 billion in actual investments, with many projects stalled or scaled back due to Saudi Arabia’s fiscal challenges and global economic disruptions (e.g., COVID-19).

•  The Saudi government’s need for oil prices above $80-$100/barrel to balance its budget (compared to actual prices often below $70) constrained its ability to meet ambitious pledges.

 

Why the Full Commitment Wasn’t Met

•  Economic Realities: Saudi Arabia’s reliance on oil revenue and budget deficits (e.g., a $79 billion deficit in 2020) limited its purchasing power.

•  Political Hurdles: U.S. congressional pushback and international criticism over Yemen and human rights slowed arms deals.

•  Exaggerated Announcements: The Trump administration and Saudi Arabia overstated the deal’s scope for political optics, with many “commitments” lacking firm contracts.

•  Geopolitical Shifts: Tensions with the Biden administration, which paused some arms sales in 2021, and Saudi Arabia’s diversification of suppliers (e.g., Russia, China) reduced reliance on U.S. deals.

 

Current Context (2025)

•  The 2017 commitment remains partially fulfilled, with arms sales likely totaling $40-$50 billion by 2025, based on historical trends and recent analyses.

•  The new $142 billion defense deal announced on May 13, 2025, during Trump’s second term, builds on the 2017 framework but is a distinct agreement. It includes new systems (e.g., MQ-9B drones, Patriot upgrades) and overlaps with some undelivered portions of the 2017 deal.

•  Saudi Arabia’s ability to meet the 2025 commitment faces similar challenges: oil prices (Brent crude at $64.77 on May 12, 2025, vs. a needed $96-$98/barrel), domestic spending pressures, and U.S. congressional oversight.

 

Conclusion

Saudi Arabia did not fully buy into its 2017 $110 billion arms commitment, with roughly $40-$50 billion in arms contracts implemented by 2025. The broader $400 billion investment pledge also fell short, with $50-$100 billion realized. Economic constraints, political obstacles, and overstated figures contributed to the shortfall. The 2025 $142 billion deal represents a renewed effort, but its success will depend on similar factors.

Sources: Reuters, Washington Post, Center for International Policy, Brookings Institution, U.S. State Department reports, and X posts (treated as inconclusive).

If you want details on specific 2017 contracts or comparisons with the 2025 deal, let me know!

 

Is it really any surprise that post 2020, there was a terrible relationship between Saudi Arabia and Loser Joe Biden?       

 

Joe Biden backed Iran, allowing funding for Iran's proxies, and did everything in his power to alienate Saudi Arabia.

 

Edited May 15, 2025 by cubsfan