Political Posts

[dealraker]

8 hours ago, DooDiligence said:

Six months ago we didn't have to pay a 55% tax on imports from China. NTM all the other price increases.

 

Worst deal maker ever. TBF though, he's great at screwing over lenders, vendors and contractors.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

 

https://theweek.com/articles/783976/brief-history-trumps-smalltime-swindles

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trumps-trail-of-unpaid-bills/85685206/

 

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/mike-kelly/2020/01/24/donald-trump-still-owes-money-to-contractors-who-built-taj-mahal-atlantic-city/4547037002/

 

Judge Orders Trump to Pay $300K for Stiffing Paint Company on Golf Resort Renovation

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/contractor-lawsuit-trump-never-settled-bill-old-post-office-dc-hotel/

 

https://theweek.com/speedreads/629132/usa-today-investigation-reveals-donald-trump-extensive-history-not-paying-workers

 

There's not enough space or time to outline all the businesses this guy has hurt, and the list gets longer every day. Meanwhile, he loots his way to crypto fortunes.

Every scam increases Trump's following and popularity.  

[Spekulatius]

From an Iranian perspective , the deal that Trump proposed wasn’t really worth signing, because I didn’t allow Iran to keep the lower level enrichment that they have had for a long time and can be used for commercial reactors. Also, what are deal signed with Trump really worth? Then we have the lesson from Ukraine war to never give up nuclear leverage.
I think Iran will retaliate against Israel just to save face but this doesn’t mean much. The key question is if they threaten the Straight of Hormuz. If that happens, oil will go up, if not, it will likely going back to where it was. In the case the Straight of Hormuz is threatened/blockade, the US Navy will get involved, imo.

Edited June 13, 2025 by Spekulatius

[whiskybravo]

7 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Depends on your source.  As I said, we are in the "ballpark".  Cheers!

 

dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship

 

 

Effective constitutional limitations is where the judiciary comes in and until now it has been respected, albeit with some squawking.  Come to think of it didn’t Schumer and other Dems do some serious anti judicial squawking?

 

I feel the same as Stealers Wheel once expressed in a song long ago.  Trump’s style and M.O. is not to my tastes (I like Ike), but the Dems as currently constituted have become ridiculous.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2025 by whiskybravo

[Blake Hampton]

28 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

From an Iranian perspective , the deal that Trump proposed wasn’t really worth signing, because I didn’t allow Iran to keep the lower level enrichment that they have had for a long time and can be used for commercial reactors. Also, what are deal signed with Trump really worth? Then we have the lesson from Ukraine war to never give up nuclear leverage.
I think Iran will retaliate against Israel just to save face but this doesn’t mean much. The key question is if they threaten the Straight of Hormuz. If that happens, oil will go up, if not, it will likely going back to where it was. In the case the Straight of Hormuz is threatened/blockade, the US Navy will get involved, imo.

 

This is a good take.

[73 Reds]

10 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

Yup, the last thing we want is to get dragged into this fight.

True, but thus far the US has played this perfectly; sufficiently removed so that if Iran were to suddenly wise up we could still be part of a negotiation process.  The entire World should be rooting for Israel's success.  Even most Iranians surely feel this way.  Its the same issue that exists in Gaza where a small ruling party controls the fate of an entire population and ruins their lives and the lives of their children.

Edited June 13, 2025 by 73 Reds
spelling

[Spekulatius]

11 hours ago, whiskybravo said:

Good thing we don’t have an autocrat.

 

Italy has had a military parade every year since 1948 on June 2, Festa Della Repubblica.  France on Bastille Day.  
 

Saturday is the 250th anniversary of the army.  
Enjoy some John Philip Sousa.

Our victory parade conveniently falls on Donnie the Greats birthday. That’s not the case with those  above which are on national holidays.

Edited June 13, 2025 by Spekulatius

[cubsfan]

32 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Our victory parade conveniently falls on Donnie the Greats birthday. That’s not the case with those  above which are on national holidays.

 

Oh, my another conspiracy theory. 

 

Maybe the Army should move their birthday, since it was found 250 years ago:

 

https://www.army.mil/1775/

[Blake Hampton]

Isn’t it funny how rhetoric can change something?

 

What’s happening right now in Iran is nothing short of war, but it hasn’t been specifically labeled as “war” — yet.

 

I think people generally underestimate Iran’s power.

[whiskybravo]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Our victory parade conveniently falls on Donnie the Greats birthday. That’s not the case with those  above which are on national holidays.

Yes and I suspect that he gets a kick out of it that so many will get their panties in an uproar.  Realistically though, if this parade was not on his birthday, would you be looking on it favorably?

 

We have dear friends in Italy whose son, an engineer graduated from Bologna, is an officer in the Italian army in Torino.  He said that he can’t wear his uniform in public, because he will be harassed.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2025 by whiskybravo

[Hektor]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

True, but thus far the US has played this perfectly; sufficiently removed so that if Iran were to suddenly wise up we could still be part of a negotiation process.

The olive branch in one claw and the arrows in the other

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, whiskybravo said:

Yes and I suspect that he gets a kick out of it that so many will get their panties in an uproar.  Realistically though, if this parade was not on his birthday, would you be looking on it favorably?

 

We have dear friends in Italy whose son, an engineer graduated from Bologna, is an officer in the Italian army in Torino.  He said that he can’t wear his uniform in public, because he will be harassed.

 

 

There was no parade on the Army‘s 200 birthday in 1975 and that‘s a rounder number. 

No, I am not a fan or military parades in general.

[Sweet]

17 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Why is it bullshit? The rules are actually quite clear. Anyways, I don’t think Europe can rely on article 5, it’s got to do your own his rework, which seem to be what’s happening.

just because life is more complex than yes or no.

 

btw - not saying I agree with him, imo he should be saying yes, but if your view is ‘yes in these circumstances’ or ‘no in these circumstances’ then its hard to articulate that when the guy is demanding yes or no.

Edited June 13, 2025 by Sweet

[whiskybravo]

10 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

There was no parade on the Army‘s 200 birthday in 1975 and that‘s a rounder number. 

No, I am not a fan or military parades in general.

Fair enough.  I must admit I haven't given them any thought over the years.  Politics is in play here, probably smartly so, because the left is seen to be unpatriotic.  The last one not associated with a military victory was 1961 for Kennedy's inauguration, height of the Cold War. 

 

[Ulti]

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/13/israel-iran-conflict-why-tehran-wont-block-the-hormuz-strait.html

 

just an opinion 

3 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

h. The key question is if they threaten the Straight of Hormuz.

[changegonnacome]

4 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

True, but thus far the US has played this perfectly; sufficiently removed so that if Iran were to suddenly wise up we could still be part of a negotiation process.

 

Sufficiently removed?......i'm not too sure you fully appreciate the security relationship or should I say the dependency relationship between Israel & the United States.

 

There are very consensus issues in D.C. - medicare, social security, China as a peer competitor and defending Israel.

 

Its simply not possible for the United States to be removed from a conflict involving Israel.....make no mistake about it.....if things escalate in the Middle East with Israel at the centre...the United States is at the centre of a conflict there to...not a Ukrainian-esque conflict where we send money & good vibes......but one involving direct US military intervention.

[73 Reds]

16 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Sufficiently removed?......i'm not too sure you fully appreciate the security relationship or should I say the dependency relationship between Israel & the United States.

 

There are very consensus issues in D.C. - medicare, social security, China as a peer competitor and defending Israel.

 

Its simply not possible for the United States to be removed from a conflict involving Israel.....make no mistake about it.....if things escalate in the Middle East with Israel at the centre...the United States is at the centre of a conflict there to...not a Ukrainian-esque conflict where we send money & good vibes......but one involving direct US military intervention.

The point was the US was full-on attempting to broker a peace deal and was not a part of the attack. No one is arguing about the allegiance of these countries to one another.  Don't assume what I, or anyone here appreciates.

[changegonnacome]

7 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

US was full-on attempting to broker a peace deal and was not a part of the attack.

 

From an Iranian point of view....and frankly anybody who understands the intricacies of the Israeli dependency on the United States for weapons, intelligence, air support, military aid, financial aid, defense....its not possible, with credibility, to say United States was not part of the attack. This is a left hand, right hand scenario. Now the right hand can claim the left hand acted unilaterally and the right hand was not part of the attack.....but I can assure you nobody in the Iranian regime or in the wider Middle East has a view like this.

[73 Reds]

Just now, changegonnacome said:

 

From an Iranian point of view....and frankly anybody who understands the intricacies of the Israeli dependency on the United States for weapons, intelligence, air support, military aid, financial aid, defense....its not possible, with credibility, to say United States was not part of the attack. This is a left hand, right hand scenario. Now the right hand can claim the left hand acted unilaterally and the right hand was not part of the attack.....but I can assure you nobody in the Iranian regime or in the wider Middle East has a view like this.

That's only semantics.  Israel will do what it wants and when without anyone's permission when its survival is at stake.  Had Iran come this close to nukes under Biden, Israel would likely have not even given us the courtesy of a heads-up.  Because Israel acted alone, the US is in the same position as a negotiator as it was yesterday at this time.  The "Iranian point of view" is only that of its ruling regime, not its people.  The majority of Iranians would like nothing better than to be rid of them.    

[changegonnacome]

2 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Because Israel acted alone

 

Jerusalem Post article today - https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-857590

 

Israeli official to 'Post': 'There was full and complete coordination with the Americans'

"We presented the American administration with evidence of Iran's breakthrough toward a nuclear bomb. There was full and complete coordination with the Americans."

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Jerusalem Post article today - https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-857590

 

Israeli official to 'Post': 'There was full and complete coordination with the Americans'

"We presented the American administration with evidence of Iran's breakthrough toward a nuclear bomb. There was full and complete coordination with the Americans."

So what?  The US knew about it in advance.  We would not have been able to stop it anyway so what is your point?

[changegonnacome]

12 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

We would not have been able to stop it anyway so what is your point?

 

My point is the following - I think you completely overestimate Israel's autonomy/sovereignty in such matters. To the point where you mentioned above that you believe the US can play a role in further nuclear negotiations divorcing itself from what just happened. I'm just trying to help you understand that in the minds of the Iranians & in the realm of reality that is not the right take.

 

Will Wechler at the Atlantic Council has the subtle nuance here right -

 

"We should assume that Israeli leaders would have interpreted the absence of an American red light as a de facto green light." - https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/unknowns-knowns-and-early-predictions-about-israels-strikes-against-iran/

 

Edited June 13, 2025 by changegonnacome

[73 Reds]

Just now, changegonnacome said:

 

My point is the following - I think you completely overestimate Israel's autonomy/sovereignty in such matters. To the point where you mentioned above that you believe the US can play a role in further nuclear negotiations divorcing itself from what just happened. I'm just trying to help you understand that in the minds of Iranians & in the realm of reality that is not the right take.

 

Will Wechler at the Atlantic Council has the subtle nuance here right

 

"We should assume that Israeli leaders would have interpreted the absence of an American red light as a de facto green light." - https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/unknowns-knowns-and-early-predictions-about-israels-strikes-against-iran/

 

Again, you are assuming with little or no facts.   This argument is entirely senseless without considering the big picture.  On one had you have a regime intent on exterminating a country and its citizens for no other reason than the fact they exist.  Given the opportunity there is no justifiable reason to believe they won't do just that.  On the other hand you have a country who could remove Iran from the face of the Earth in less than an hour, but doesn't and won't.  All that country wants is survival and peace.  With that in mind, to whatever extent you believe the US was involved in planning this attack has nothing whatsoever to do with the objectives of eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities, which oh-by-the-way our President has repeated ad nasuem will never come to fruition under his watch.  So my point is, was and remains that the US is in the same negotiating position today on this issue as it was yesterday. 

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, whiskybravo said:

Fair enough.  I must admit I haven't given them any thought over the years.  Politics is in play here, probably smartly so, because the left is seen to be unpatriotic.  The last one not associated with a military victory was 1961 for Kennedy's inauguration, height of the Cold War. 

 

Wow, so half of the country is unpatriotic? Huh, that’s an interesting take.  So patriotic of you!

[cubsfan]

36 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Again, you are assuming with little or no facts.   This argument is entirely senseless without considering the big picture.  On one had you have a regime intent on exterminating a country and its citizens for no other reason than the fact they exist.  Given the opportunity there is no justifiable reason to believe they won't do just that.  On the other hand you have a country who could remove Iran from the face of the Earth in less than an hour, but doesn't and won't.  All that country wants is survival and peace.  With that in mind, to whatever extent you believe the US was involved in planning this attack has nothing whatsoever to do with the objectives of eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities, which oh-by-the-way our President has repeated ad nasuem will never come to fruition under his watch.  So my point is, was and remains that the US is in the same negotiating position today on this issue as it was yesterday. 

 

It's seems damn clear. Trump got his shot at postponing the attack weeks ago while he played out the diplomatic hand, much to Bibi's disappointment or permission.

In the end, Bibi was going to do what he felt he needed to do, with or without the United States permission. 

 

I would have loved to see a extended blockade or sanctions, something like that, but my country hasn't been showered with 20,000 missiles for the last 18 months.

 

Good for Bibi.

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, cubsfan said:

 

It's seems damn clear. Trump got his shot at postponing the attack weeks ago while he played out the diplomatic hand, much to Bibi's disappointment or permission.

In the end, Bibi was going to do what he felt he needed to do, with or without the United States permission. 

 

I would have loved to see a extended blockade or sanctions, something like that, but my country hasn't been showered with 20,000 missiles for the last 18 months.

 

Good for Bibi.

What is lost on many is that the World stands to benefit.  How many countries would like to see an Iran with nukes?