Parsad Posted March 25 Posted March 25 42 minutes ago, Gregmal said: Blake what kind of mattress do you store your money under? 24 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: A big one. Good comeback Blake! I don't think Greg was ready for that one. Cheers!
cubsfan Posted March 25 Posted March 25 28 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: The saddest part is a lot of people that got taken by this man aren't even bad people, many of them not stupid either. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there are many who I deeply love who voted for this. I use angry rhetoric simply because I'm frustrated. I'm upset at what's happening with both the world and my country. I am sad that we could let something like this happen, that we could ever let a man like Trump take the reigns of the most powerful country on Earth. If you think there are not consequences to this, that there is no price attached to all of this madness that we're seeing, you are making a mistake. Maybe Trump works his way out of this one. We'll see. But what is certain, is if that happens, we'll simply move on to the next stage of Trump induced chaos. There will come a time when the option to escape simply isn't there. And when that happens, when that day finally comes, you can be sure that we'll all be standing there right beside him. Blake - if you don't understand a defanged Iran and the sacrifice to rid it of nukes - you are beyond help. Suck it up already.
Malmqky Posted March 25 Posted March 25 4 minutes ago, Parsad said: Ok with long-term large deficits and increased debt...although I'm not sure Trump is any more fiscally responsible, but generally the GOP is?! Sure about that?
Parsad Posted March 25 Posted March 25 9 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: I think it's obvious that you're very smart @Parsad. I still think you underestimate the risk with Trump. No, what I learned is that he's somewhat of a chicken-shit! He loves himself too much to really blow things to hell...thus why he TACO's so much. But I also learned he's a very driven person...more driven than I actually expected and probably more than anyone else expected! People underestimate that drive and determination to get what he wants. He'll push the envelope and people to the breaking point...in other words, he's a fucking bully! Like most bullies, once you punch him back in the fucking face, he backs down and will look for a way to save face and usually placates himself with a deal that he calls a win. But words don't hurt him...he'll fight back with words. Only when his money is at risk, then he turtles and looks for a way out. Cheers!
Blake Hampton Posted March 25 Posted March 25 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Parsad said: She has no clue around finance, trade or investment. I heard her try and answer some basic questions on finance...it was brutal! I'm sure Trump is just as ignorant about many things, but you know he was going to do things that were pro-business/investment/trade. So you are ok with 10M illegals and more pouring in through the southern border? What about the lack of direct investment/manufacturing in the U.S.? Ok with long-term large deficits and increased debt...although I'm not sure Trump is any more fiscally responsible, but generally the GOP is?! Also, the house isn't burning...this is more rhetoric. Yes, oil prices are high, will probably hit businesses globally, and increase the chance of a small, global recession, but the U.S. is in a better position today than it was a year ago domestically. Internationally, yes, a lot of unnecessary damage self-inflicted by the Orange Gooman that will last years, and damaged the U.S. reputation as the world's statesman and its relationships with allies. But domestically, there is a ton of investment coming into the country, borders are secure which will save money long-term and improve access to social programs that were being used by illegals, improving corporate earnings despite the tariffs, higher GDP growth, lower inflation and increased domestic manufacturing/jobs. You can bitch about his failures, but in all honesty, he's had some successes too. Have to call it like I see it! Cheers! Of course she doesn't, she's a democrat! Trump is all about optics. He is willing to completely sell the entirety of your future in exchange for one ounce of something that looks good today. There is no doubt in my mind that he has already done an immense amount of long-term damage, both domestically and internationally. 5 minutes ago, Parsad said: No, what I learned is that he's somewhat of a chicken-shit! He loves himself too much to really blow things to hell...thus why he TACO's so much. But I also learned he's a very driven person...more driven than I actually expected and probably more than anyone else expected! People underestimate that drive and determination to get what he wants. He'll push the envelope and people to the breaking point...in other words, he's a fucking bully! Like most bullies, once you punch him back in the fucking face, he backs down and will look for a way to save face and usually placates himself with a deal that he calls a win. But words don't hurt him...he'll fight back with words. Only when his money is at risk, then he turtles and looks for a way out. Cheers! You are correct. He is one of the most driven men I've ever seen, and he does turtle every time the going gets tough. But like with Iran, he might just get himself into a situation he can't easily escape. Edited March 25 by Blake Hampton
Parsad Posted March 25 Posted March 25 5 minutes ago, Malmqky said: Sure about that? Historically yes...but it's been a mess either way since the GFC. Cheers! https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2011/5/democrats-in-congress-ran-up-most-of-america-s-debt
Parsad Posted March 25 Posted March 25 8 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: You are correct. He is one of the most driven men I've ever seen, and he does turtle every time the going gets tough. But like with Iran, he might just get himself into a situation he can't easily escape. That may happen...none of us can predict the future. But if there ever was a time to, as Cubs put it "defang Iran" and bring some long-term peace to the Middle East, this may be it. I don't think it will happen, because even Trump doesn't have the balls to do what is necessary...which would be extremely painful for everyone...so he will make a deal that will bring some peace for a decade and chalk up another so-called "win"! Where is China? Where is Russia? Where is North Korea? No Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, etc. Lebanon under fire. Arabs don't like the bombings, but understand it would be better long-term. You will never get this opportunity again! And going forward, he needs to "defang" Israel a bit too. Netanyahu cannot run roughshod wherever/whenever he likes when this is over. A deal will be made here...neither Trump, nor Iran want this to go further, but Iran also wants to call it some sort of "win". They'll both give a bit and want a bit, with Trump probably giving up a little more than he expected originally...this is not the "easy win" Cubs likes to call it. But probably a "win" nonetheless! Cheers!
Blake Hampton Posted March 25 Posted March 25 6 minutes ago, Parsad said: A deal will be made here...neither Trump, nor Iran want this to go further, but Iran also wants to call it some sort of "win". How are you so certain that Iran doesn't want this to go further? This "war" has one of the lowest approval ratings ever. Their new leader just had his entire family killed. Regarding energy, they have us in a vice grip and they know it.
cubsfan Posted March 25 Posted March 25 6 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: How are you so certain that Iran doesn't want this to go further? This "war" has one of the lowest approval ratings ever. Their new leader just had his entire family killed. Regarding energy, they have us in a vice grip and they know it. If the United States and Israel have total Air Supremacy now supplemented with attack aircraft like A-10's and Apaches - how exactly will Iran fight back?
Viking Posted March 25 Posted March 25 19 minutes ago, cubsfan said: If the United States and Israel have total Air Supremacy now supplemented with attack aircraft like A-10's and Apaches - how exactly will Iran fight back? Iran doesn’t need to ‘fight back.’ IMHO, what matters in this war today is very simple: the Straight of Hormuz. Iran appears to be in ‘control’ of the straight. By control, they appear to be the party controlling what gets in and out. The question everyone wants answered: “When will traffic in the Straight of Hormuz return to normal?” I don’t think anyone is questioning the awesome power of the US military. Or how much it can bomb Iran. That is pretty obvious. The issue is - despite this awesome power - the straight remains effectively closed. Yes, it is a contradiction.
ourkid8 Posted March 25 Posted March 25 2 hours ago, Blake Hampton said: How is it that a blundering fucking moron like Trump could ever be so manipulative? Is it the fact that he is so incompetent and disgusting that draws people to him? Serious. I do not understand it. Even the WSJ was championing this fool back in 2024, like he wasn't gonna become president and cause chaos. It should have been obvious to anyone with half a fucking brain that this dude was up to no good. Yet here we are. We have people on a Buffett board defending this lunatic. It would almost be hilarious if it weren't so goddamn terrifying. Charlie warned us in 2011.
cubsfan Posted March 25 Posted March 25 10 minutes ago, Viking said: Iran doesn’t need to ‘fight back.’ IMHO, what matters in this war today is very simple: the Straight of Hormuz. Iran appears to be in ‘control’ of the straight. By control, they appear to be the party controlling what gets in and out. The question everyone wants answered: “When will traffic in the Straight of Hormuz return to normal?” I don’t think anyone is questioning the awesome power of the US military. Or how much it can bomb Iran. That is pretty obvious. The issue is - despite this awesome power - the straight remains effectively closed. Yes, it is a contradiction. Of course that's correct. The SOH can be taken or shelled or armed forces destroyed - then what Iran? You don't think that's coming eventually? The US/Israel already control the fate of Kharg Island. Iran is helpless to defend it. SOH are close to being next. We're going to know soon enough. But Iran is not in control of its own destiny.
cubsfan Posted March 25 Posted March 25 12 minutes ago, ourkid8 said: Charlie warned us in 2011. In 2023 - Charlie warned Democrats that Trump was right:
Parsad Posted March 25 Posted March 25 24 minutes ago, Viking said: Iran doesn’t need to ‘fight back.’ IMHO, what matters in this war today is very simple: the Straight of Hormuz. Iran appears to be in ‘control’ of the straight. By control, they appear to be the party controlling what gets in and out. The question everyone wants answered: “When will traffic in the Straight of Hormuz return to normal?” I don’t think anyone is questioning the awesome power of the US military. Or how much it can bomb Iran. That is pretty obvious. The issue is - despite this awesome power - the straight remains effectively closed. Yes, it is a contradiction. They only have control if there is no ground war. Neither wants that...it would be brutal for both sides; economically catastrophic for the U.S., Iran, most of the world; and it would mean a long-term, drawn out war in Iran...where the regime would ultimately lose everything. Do you think the U.S. will not use a nuke to end a ground war if it is prolonged and means a lot of casualties? Iran has nothing to counter that. They named the Department of Defense...the Department of War! If it means 100,000 dead U.S. soldiers, they will use the bomb. Use game theory here. What are the plausible outcomes and what are the plausible desired outcomes. Then use probabilities to figure out the likelihood of the extreme outcomes versus the more plausible outcomes. The most likely scenario is that one side will give a little more than the other to avoid an extreme outcome. And at this point, it is more likely to be Trump if he can get a decade of no nukes, peace and call it a "win". The regime just wants to retain control and power...for now, they are happy to walk away somewhat intact and say they beat the satanic Americans who crave war. They want to live to fight another day! Cheers!
Parsad Posted March 25 Posted March 25 25 minutes ago, ourkid8 said: Charlie warned us in 2011. 11 minutes ago, cubsfan said: In 2023 - Charlie warned Democrats that Trump was right: This is the problem with you two! You guys only pick and choose what backs up your position. Charlie was a pragmatist. He wasn't too proud to admit that his views could change based on the ACTUAL FACTS! He was far from a fan of Trump's, but at the same time agreed with certain issues Trump wanted to fix. That's very different than what either of you are doing! Cheers!
cubsfan Posted March 25 Posted March 25 Just now, Parsad said: This is the problem with you two! You guys only pick and choose what backs up your position. Charlie was a pragmatist. He wasn't too proud to admit that his views could change based on the ACTUAL FACTS! He was far from a fan of Trump's, but at the same time agreed with certain issues Trump wanted to fix. That's very different than what either of you are doing! Cheers! That's my whole point Parsad. Charlie was a pragmatist that was able to change his mind about Trump - just like I did. Never did I infer that he and Trump were drinking buddies. It's a good trait to have - what did Charlie say was so important... "Any year you don't destroy one of your best loved ideas is probably a wasted year" Now that is a wise man.
Blake Hampton Posted March 25 Posted March 25 (edited) 4 minutes ago, cubsfan said: Now that is a wise man. He read the WSJ, FT, and NYT daily. He also said that The Economist was the single-best publication he read: Edited March 25 by Blake Hampton
John Hjorth Posted March 25 Posted March 25 3 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: He read the WSJ, FT, and NYT daily. He also said that The Economist was the single-best publication he read: Blake [ @Blake Hampton ], It just happens - some times - that it's just better to stand down, letting things go, instead of hanging in them like some terrier. <John, too much of a cheapskate for a FT subscription! - I think I need to start a petition on change.org to get the subscription price down! - It's really outragious!, totally out of line!>
cubsfan Posted March 25 Posted March 25 27 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: He read the WSJ, FT, and NYT daily. He also said that The Economist was the single-best publication he read: Very good Blake! Not sure he would say that today, but I'll take your word for it.
Blake Hampton Posted March 25 Posted March 25 (edited) 14 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: Blake [ @Blake Hampton ], It just happens - some times - that it's just better to stand down, letting things go, instead of hanging in them like some terrier. <John, too much of a cheapskate for a FT subscription! - I think I need to start a petition on change.org to get the subscription price down! - It's really outragious!, totally out of line!> Just trying to help Cubs escape his echo chamber. The FT Digital Edition is only $12 a month. It's the online version of the printed paper. I strongly recommend it. Edited March 25 by Blake Hampton
Blake Hampton Posted March 25 Posted March 25 The normal print editions for any of the national papers are too expensive. Buffett is likely the only one that can afford them all anymore.
John Hjorth Posted March 25 Posted March 25 3 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: Just trying to help Cubs escape his echo chamber. The FT Digital Edition is only $12 a month. It's the online version of the printed paper. I strongly recommend it. 2 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said: The normal print editions for any of the national papers are too expensive. Buffett is likely the only one that can afford them all anymore. Off topic: Thank you, Blake [ @Blake Hampton ]!
Spekulatius Posted March 25 Posted March 25 17 hours ago, Parsad said: https://www.hoover.org/research/threat-any-language Cheers! Yep, Iranian leader have on many occasions to wipe out Israel. Sounds a bit more than a negotiating tactic or pure rhetoric to me. I don’t think Israel has ever threatened to wipe Iran of the map.
Hektor Posted March 25 Posted March 25 2 hours ago, Parsad said: Where is Russia? https://www.ft.com/content/d5d7291b-8a53-42cd-b10a-4e02fbcf9047?syn-25a6b1a6=1 Russia (and China too) might see an opportunity to do a Ukraine on the USA 54 minutes ago, Parsad said: And at this point, it is more likely to be Trump if he can get a decade of no nukes, peace and call it a "win". Looks like Congress is dragging its feet on funding Epic Fury. All these are additional reasons to off ramp, I feel.
Viking Posted March 25 Posted March 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, Parsad said: They only have control if there is no ground war. Neither wants that...it would be brutal for both sides; economically catastrophic for the U.S., Iran, most of the world; and it would mean a long-term, drawn out war in Iran...where the regime would ultimately lose everything. Do you think the U.S. will not use a nuke to end a ground war if it is prolonged and means a lot of casualties? Iran has nothing to counter that. They named the Department of Defense...the Department of War! If it means 100,000 dead U.S. soldiers, they will use the bomb. Use game theory here. What are the plausible outcomes and what are the plausible desired outcomes. Then use probabilities to figure out the likelihood of the extreme outcomes versus the more plausible outcomes. The most likely scenario is that one side will give a little more than the other to avoid an extreme outcome. And at this point, it is more likely to be Trump if he can get a decade of no nukes, peace and call it a "win". The regime just wants to retain control and power...for now, they are happy to walk away somewhat intact and say they beat the satanic Americans who crave war. They want to live to fight another day! Cheers! @Parsad, there is no risk of 100,000 US casualties any time soon. So that problem is off the table for now. I think you are underestimating Iran’s resolve. Look at what they were willing to endure in their decade-long war with Iraq (the military leaders from that war are in charge now). We are 4 weeks into this conflict. The IRCG want much more than to ‘retain power and control.’ As long as they control what gets out of the straight they have leverage - it makes sense to me that they are going to try and maximize it. I agree that at some point Trump might decide to use a tactical nuke… Game theory only really works when you are dealing with rational actors. The US under Trump and Iran under the IRGC are not rational (I don’t think that should be a controversial statement). Edited March 25 by Viking
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now