Political Posts

[Spekulatius]

Steely Dan had an record named Pretzel Logic and I always wondered what this meant:

 

[Gregmal]

8 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Steely Dan had an record named Pretzel Logic and I always wondered what this meant:

 

Getting your news on Twitter, from Obamas speechwriter? Oof

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Parsad said:

 

Ah...Iraq taking over Kuwait!  Two days!    Cheers!

 

Very clever - too bad it cost them 30,000 soldiers 

[ourkid8]

3 hours ago, Red Lion said:

The Iran regime is just as bad as the Nazis, just not nearly as formidable (unless they build a nuke). 

Would you please elaborate how Iran is just as bad as the Nazis? - that’s a bold statement to make with no facts. 

[ourkid8]

1 hour ago, Parsad said:

 

That would be a self-inflicted wound to the U.S. as well, as gas prices globally would go further through the roof.  There is no real victor here except some sort of peaceful resolution to keep oil flowing, the Strait open and open inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.  I think regime change will be difficult without Trump cutting his own throat before mid-terms because they are entrenched and targeted bombs won't do it.  That's also why he has to keep some sort of leash on Bibi now too because Bibi wants to go for the jugular...but that can't happen!  Cheers!

Regular inspection along with getting rid of their stockpile of enriched uranium was always on the table during negotiations yet as we are all aware they were attacked. 
 

You are a rational guy, why do you think Israel doesn’t go through regular inspections as well?  

[Viking]

2 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Look, I know that people such as @Xerxes, know the situation orders of magnitude  better than I do.  However, it seems to me that closing the straits of Hormuz is the trump card that the Iranian government has.  The straits can probably be opened in a few weeks, although I don't really know.  However, if Israel or the US destroy the oil and gas infrastructure  in Iran, which seems to me quite easy to do, then it is game over for the Iranian regime.  So hard to see how an ultimatum open the straits or you don't have an oil and gas industry does not work.  

 

Nuclear deterrence works for one simple reason: MAD (mutually assured destruction). It acts as a deterrent by making full-scale nuclear war irrational and unwinnable.

 

If the US/Israeli's wipe out Iran's critical energy/infrastructure guess how Iran will respond? My uneducated guess is they will take out the energy/infrastructure of their neighbours. This would be a major escalation of the war - the US/Israeli's would be pressing the nuclear button (from an energy/infrastructure perspective). If that is how this plays out... the lasting damage to oil/energy markets would be enormous. LNG and refining facilities take years to rebuild. "Choose wisely..."

 

PS: I just thought of a big flaw in my reasoning: the US is located on a different continent, is 'energy independent' and doesn't appear to give a shit about pretty much anyone else... so why would they care what the consequences of their actions are to Gulf countries and the ROW?    

Edited March 22 by Viking

[bargainman]

@Parsad I'm curious if you and other folks in BC/Vancouver are following the BC Land Cowichan rulings?  what's your take?

[cubsfan]

46 minutes ago, Viking said:

PS: I just thought of a big flaw in my reasoning: the US is located on a different continent, is 'energy independent' and doesn't appear to give a shit about pretty much anyone else... so why would they care what the consequences of their actions are to Gulf countries and the ROW?    

 

It's great to be untouchable - and it has to be very frustrating for Iran - and it shows.  If they drag all their neighbors into the war - they assure their destruction.  But it is certainly wonderful Iran can not hurt the USA.

 

You fail to mention the obvious: Israel is a primary driver of this war - and is certainly paying a price.

Which only seals Iran's fate...

[Viking]

18 minutes ago, bargainman said:

@Parsad I'm curious if you and other folks in BC/Vancouver are following the BC Land Cowichan rulings?  what's your take?

 

It's a mess. We have a Provincial government that is very ideological. They have an extreme view of what reconciliation means. They are not being honest with British Columbians about what the implications are of their view of reconciliation (and the legislation they have enacted). The Federal government just threw gasoline on the fire (for no apparent reason).

 

Bottom line, the easy fix is the NDP government repeals the parts of the legislation (DRIPA) that is causing all the problems. But they don't want to (it's an ideological thing for them - so who cares what the consequences are).

 

The problem is most British Columbians (voters) are asleep at the wheel. The media has done a poor job of reporting on the issue (ad how important it is).

 

The podcast below discusses what BC Government has done. Go to the 14:20 minute mark to miss all the small talk...

 

 

The podcast below discusses what the Fed's have done to make matters worse. Go to the 22:45 minute mark to miss all the small talk...

    

 

Edited March 22 by Viking

[ourkid8]

4 hours ago, Viking said:

 

Nuclear deterrence works for one simple reason: MAD (mutually assured destruction). It acts as a deterrent by making full-scale nuclear war irrational and unwinnable.

 

If the US/Israeli's wipe out Iran's critical energy/infrastructure guess how Iran will respond? My uneducated guess is they will take out the energy/infrastructure of their neighbours. This would be a major escalation of the war - the US/Israeli's would be pressing the nuclear button (from an energy/infrastructure perspective). If that is how this plays out... the lasting damage to oil/energy markets would be enormous. LNG and refining facilities take years to rebuild. "Choose wisely..."

 

PS: I just thought of a big flaw in my reasoning: the US is located on a different continent, is 'energy independent' and doesn't appear to give a shit about pretty much anyone else... so why would they care what the consequences of their actions are to Gulf countries and the ROW?    

They will deatroy infrastructure around the region including but not limited to energy, IT, desalination along with Haifa refinery, Dimona nuclear research site in israel where they most likely store their nuclear weapons - self destruction all across. - Iran is fighting for their survival so everything can be fair game. Iran is going tit for tat and not escalating the situation. 

Edited March 22 by ourkid8

[Maverick47]

1 hour ago, Viking said:

PS: I just thought of a big flaw in my reasoning: the US is located on a different continent, is 'energy independent' and doesn't appear to give a shit about pretty much anyone else... so why would they care what the consequences of their actions are to Gulf countries and the ROW?    

I think the reason the US would care is that the ROW will indeed be affected.  With a huge trade deficit to the ROW, the US will naturally import the increased costs (and hence inflation) from the ROW via higher product and transportation prices required to merely obtain the current products we import.  The only simple lever that can be pulled to offset those higher costs could be to remove the tariffs levied on the imports, but that would mean Trump would have to admit they were a mistake, and we all know he can never admit he’s done anything wrong.

 

Seems like a Catch 22 (thank you Joseph Heller).

 

But at least no one will be talking about the Trump/Epstein files in the meantime. 

Edited March 22 by Maverick47

[Mephistopheles]

The people dunking on Mueller are proving that they are part of a cult.
 

The Mueller report supported that there was no Russia collusion! It was a win for your team.
 

Not to mention it was Trump’s DOJ that appointed him.

 

The extremists on both side hate Mueller, and that makes his report legitimate and excellent imo!

Edited March 22 by Mephistopheles

[Mephistopheles]

2 hours ago, Viking said:

 

Nuclear deterrence works for one simple reason: MAD (mutually assured destruction). It acts as a deterrent by making full-scale nuclear war irrational and unwinnable.

 

If the US/Israeli's wipe out Iran's critical energy/infrastructure guess how Iran will respond? My uneducated guess is they will take out the energy/infrastructure of their neighbours. This would be a major escalation of the war - the US/Israeli's would be pressing the nuclear button (from an energy/infrastructure perspective). If that is how this plays out... the lasting damage to oil/energy markets would be enormous. LNG and refining facilities take years to rebuild. "Choose wisely..."

 

PS: I just thought of a big flaw in my reasoning: the US is located on a different continent, is 'energy independent' and doesn't appear to give a shit about pretty much anyone else... so why would they care what the consequences of their actions are to Gulf countries and the ROW?    

Not to bring up investing, but is the US really a net beneficiary of the war on the oil side? I know they are with nat gas. But aren’t we a net oil importer because we don’t produce enough heavy oil? 

[Spekulatius]

How does being energy independent help the average consumer in the US who has to pay more for energy and suffer from higher inflation while a few owners oil and energy cos will make much more money? High energy prices are net negative even for states like Texas nowadays.

 

Texas also has seen some of the highest rises in gas prices since the Gulf war erupted.

[UK]

11 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

How does being energy independent help the average consumer in the US who has to pay more for energy and suffer from higher inflation while a few owners oil and energy cos will make much more money? High energy prices are net negative even for states like Texas nowadays.

 

Texas also has seen some of the highest rises in gas prices since the Gulf war erupted.

Some of those consumers will benefit directly or indirectly from high energy prices too? It is like more like reallocation of purchasing power within US, but not to some other countries, in case of high net importers. Also, especially with gas prices like today vs Europe, whole industries in US will become very competitive, could be more  beneficial for manufacturing than the whole tariff saga...

 

Edited March 22 by UK

[dealraker]

9 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

It's great to be untouchable - and it has to be very frustrating for Iran - and it shows.  If they drag all their neighbors into the war - they assure their destruction.  But it is certainly wonderful Iran can not hurt the USA.

 

You fail to mention the obvious: Israel is a primary driver of this war - and is certainly paying a price.

Which only seals Iran's fate...

Cubs I think you've now told us 100 times that Trump has won the war, that we've completely destroyed all things in Iran, and that it is all tucked in a neat orderly victory with absolutely zero cost or consequences...and of course that implies no ongoing unsolved issues.  But then time passes and you're still here ranting to us in cute absolutes that Trump is continuously doing miraculous things to win the war - that war thingy that you've endlessly told us was long-long ago already won and finished because nothing remains in Iran.

 

It gets a bit confusing Cubs.  

 

 

[73 Reds]

9 hours ago, ourkid8 said:

They will deatroy infrastructure around the region including but not limited to energy, IT, desalination along with Haifa refinery, Dimona nuclear research site in israel where they most likely store their nuclear weapons - self destruction all across. - Iran is fighting for their survival so everything can be fair game. Iran is going tit for tat and not escalating the situation. 

When Israel has had enough they will destroy Iran's oil facilities and the remaining regime members will scatter like cockroaches.  The Iranian regime is done.  It's only a question of when, not if.  Ain't no surviving this time.  

[ourkid8]

40 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

When Israel has had enough they will destroy Iran's oil facilities and the remaining regime members will scatter like cockroaches.  The Iranian regime is done.  It's only a question of when, not if.  Ain't no surviving this time.  

Iran has a decentralized survival strategy where there is no off switch since they are fighting for survival. Israel can keep on targeting whoever - it just doesn’t matter. You really don’t get it, that’s the funny thing. 
 

btw: US / Israel keeps on begging for a ceasefire, yet Iran politely refuses. 

[Marco Van Basten]

Iran is NOT fighting for survival.  Iranian regime is fighting for the right to have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in order to wipe out non-Shiites at any moment that they choose.  Khamenei the elder stated that it is worth letting two hundred million Muslims die in order to wipe out Israel.  Meanwhile, chants death to America and attacks on Americans came in way before attacks on Israel.   As for who is begging, well both Israel and the US each have the ability to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, while Iran only dreams of being able to do so.  

[Spekulatius]

 

1 hour ago, UK said:

Some of those consumers will benefit directly or indirectly from high energy prices too? It is like more like reallocation of purchasing power within US, but not to some other countries, in case of high net importers. Also, especially with gas prices like today vs Europe, whole industries in US will become very competitive, could be more  beneficial for manufacturing than the whole tariff saga...

 

Yes, the few people who work in the oil industry will benefit somewhat, if they get a raise. I think 98% of people in the US will simply pay more for energy and later  goods (due to inflation).

 

Maybe Trump is implementing a windfall tax on energy and use the income tax to re- distribute excess income to consumers via windfall tax dividend to make it “fairer”. Then it could be neutral to consumers overall. Shy of this, it’s just going to be more of a k- shaped economy.

[ourkid8]

3 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Iran is NOT fighting for survival.  Iranian regime is fighting for the right to have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in order to wipe out non-Shiites at any moment that they choose.  Khamenei the elder stated that it is worth letting two hundred million Muslims die in order to wipe out Israel.  Meanwhile, chants death to America and attacks on Americans came in way before attacks on Israel.   As for who is begging, well both Israel and the US each have the ability to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, while Iran only dreams of being able to do so.  

1. Ayatollah Khamenei was against nuclear weapons and had a fatwa against it. - you are a liar  (show me one credible source besides Nethanyahu cartoon drawings) - Joe Kent also confirmed it - video below  

2. No- that’s a blatant lie and you know it. Show me one credible source where my beloved ayatollah Khamenei said he is willing to let two hundred million die  - keep on spewing Zionist propaganda! 
3. Israel begged Iran via USA during the 12 day war to stop and is begging now.  (Do a basic google search for your reference) 
 

Iran is in a war with a super power and their rabid attack dog. They are fighting for their survival after being attacked and exercising their right to self defence under article 51 of the UN charter. 
 

btw: Checkmate  
 

 

Edited March 22 by ourkid8

[Parsad]

11 hours ago, bargainman said:

@Parsad I'm curious if you and other folks in BC/Vancouver are following the BC Land Cowichan rulings?  what's your take?

 

The people whose land the Cowichan ruling in the Richmond area directly affected are very worried.  Even banks are putting in caveats in mortgage renewals, appraisers are putting valuation qualifications in their reports, etc, on those pieces of private property.

 

BC is one of the few, if not only province, that never put treaties into place decades ago.  Ontario, Quebec, etc don't have this problem.  These land claims should have been settled under treaties a long time ago.  Instead the aboriginal nations have rightful claims against lands in BC.  

 

At the same time, they also know that will never work. They cannot go after private property in city/populated regions.  They are going to go after other large open land seeking extensive fishing, mineral, property rights to control that land with minimal provincial influence.  They will probably also get ownership of some city/populated land controlled/owned by the province. 

 

At the end of the day, they will get a nice fat settlement/land/rights to help their nations, while doing the least damage possible on private property rights.  This has how previous BC settlements have been made.

 

That being said, the ruling is powerful.  It could remain in court for decades again if the province decides to fight it.  But this current provincial administration is very aboriginal friendly, and will probably put amendments in any settlement agreement into place to protect private property rights, while giving an overall really fat settlement in other areas. 

 

Overall, most people other than the immediately affected and the political parties aren't panicking over it.  But with nothing settled yet, real estate involved (banks, mortgages, appraisers, legal) are making some changes in behavior/documentation.

 

The aboriginal nations in BC are very well-organized and well=funded now.  They have the means to fight through the legal system, have access to both large amounts of private/public capital for projects, development, etc and have powerful resource rights.  No teepee on reservations any longer...aboriginal groups have learned very well about capitalism, public/private partnerships, private equity, etc.  They want what is coming to them, settle this and move forward...that is the same thing non-aboriginals want as well, protecting their homes, businesses, cottages, etc. 

 

It would make sense to come to a reasonable compromise, settle these things and get them out of everyone's hands where if the wrong person decides to make hay, it could get ugly in the future.  Better everyone walks away happy and a little bit unhappy in a nice negotiated settlement.  Cheers! 

[cubsfan]

2 hours ago, dealraker said:

Cubs I think you've now told us 100 times that Trump has won the war, that we've completely destroyed all things in Iran, and that it is all tucked in a neat orderly victory with absolutely zero cost or consequences...and of course that implies no ongoing unsolved issues.  But then time passes and you're still here ranting to us in cute absolutes that Trump is continuously doing miraculous things to win the war - that war thingy that you've endlessly told us was long-long ago already won and finished because nothing remains in Iran.

 

It gets a bit confusing Cubs.  

 

If I told you 100X and you still don't get it Deal, that's ok, cause I know you're a little slow in your old age.

 

 Here's what I said: Iran is not winning this war, unlike what your buddy Viking keeps spouting. There is a "cost" to get rid of the world's largest terrorist nation.  Keep relying on the NYT & WSJ as "objective" might lead you to a different conclusion.

 

Oh, and don't forget Deal: this campaign by the US & Israel has been a stunning success.

[Viking]

3 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

When Israel has had enough they will destroy Iran's oil facilities and the remaining regime members will scatter like cockroaches.  The Iranian regime is done.  It's only a question of when, not if.  Ain't no surviving this time.  

I hope you are right. It looks like we have a 1950’s game of chicken going on. Not sure that is the best way to resolve the war in the Persian Gulf… but it appears to be where we are at.
 

The US/Israeli’s are driving the global economy car and Iran is driving the other car. Who wins in the game of chicken? 
 

In the classic game of chicken (two cars driving straight at each other), there isn’t a single “winner” in the conventional sense. The outcome depends on credibility, commitment, and psychology, not just courage.

The payoff structure (intuition)

• Best outcome (individual): You keep going, the other swerves → you “win”
• Worst outcome (mutual): Neither swerves → catastrophic crash
• Second-best (mutual): Both swerve → no crash, but no dominance
• Second-worst (individual): You swerve, the other doesn’t → you “lose”

---

Who actually “wins”?

The player who convinces the other they won’t swerve.

This is the key insight from game theory (Thomas Schelling):

The winner is not the bravest — it’s the one who makes their threat most credible.

---

How does someone make that credible?

1. Commitment (burning the steering wheel)

If one driver throws their steering wheel out the window, they’ve removed their ability to swerve.

• Now the other driver faces a binary choice:
  • Swerve → survive
  • Don’t swerve → both die

Result: The committed player “wins” almost every time.

---

2. Reputation

If one driver is known historically to never swerve, the other will yield.

This is repeated-game logic:

• Past behavior shapes future expectations
• Reputation becomes a strategic asset

---

3. Asymmetric incentives

If one player values survival less (or appears irrational), they gain leverage.

• A rational player must swerve against someone perceived as irrational
• This is sometimes called the “madman advantage”

---

Equilibrium view (game theory)

Chicken has two Nash equilibria:

1. Player A goes straight, Player B swerves
2. Player B goes straight, Player A swerves

There is no stable equilibrium where both go straight (crash) or both swerve (unstable—someone is tempted to deviate).

---

Key takeaway (important)

The game is not about bravery — it’s about:

• Credible commitment
• Signaling
• Psychological dominance

Edited March 22 by Viking

[Blake Hampton]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

If I told you 100X and you still don't get it Deal, that's ok, cause I know you're a little slow in your old age.

 

 Here's what I said: Iran is not winning this war, unlike what your buddy Viking keeps spouting. There is a "cost" to get rid of the world's largest terrorist nation.  Keep relying on the NYT & WSJ as "objective" might lead you to a different conclusion.

 

Oh, and don't forget Deal: this campaign by the US & Israel has been a stunning success.

 

Cubs, you would do yourself a great service if you read the WSJ everyday instead of whatever else it is you consume. You said you get your news from "cable news - YouTube sources - podcasters." Dude, on both sides of the aisle, that stuff is extremely biased and full of misinformation.

 

I think Deal is one of the smartest posters on the board. I also think that your news sources are corrupting your worldview.