Political Posts

[cubsfan]

12 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Like this guy?  Kristi Noem's husband...

 

 

Maybe she should shoot those puppies!    Cheers!

 

You have a point there!

 

[Spekulatius]

3 hours ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

I'm curious why you say this.  At the time there were large protests against the regime, and the regime there is bad for both the Iranian people and the rest of the world.

 

To my way of thinking at the time, there was maybe a 50% chance of the Iranian people enacting their own regime change, and it was also unclear if Iran could potentially close the strait against the USA's military might. And, it distracted Trump, preventing him from attacking his allies.  So to me, it looked like a reasonable bet at the time.

 

What, at the time, made you think that it was an obvious foolish thing to do?  Did you just have a different estimate of the probability of positive regime change, or were more confident than me about Iran's ability to control the strait?

The protest were already over 2 month when the war started. The Iranian regime is very good at suppressing protest and they had similar ones several times before. Also, the regime had more popular support than most in the west believe. Even those that don’t exactly like the regime because of corruption likely want to keep an Islamic state rather rather than a western style secular democracy. You can see that on how people vote in surrounding states.

Edited 17 hours ago by Spekulatius

[RichardGibbons]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

I think the fragility of the Iranian regime thesis that was out there turned out to be more Israeli propaganda than reality. Something that JD Vance, Rubio & the Director of the CIA told Trump prior to Epic Fury….i believe the word used by Trump’s senior most advisors on that idea was “bullshit”.

 

At the time I remember being somewhat in your camp assuming that Trump must have been told by his own intelligence agencies that the regime was at a tipping point and just needed a nudge….in that world I had a “worth a shot” opinion too….the subsequent reporting however on the decision timeline for Epic Fury shows the lack of credible US intelligence, only overblown self serving Israeli Iran fragility stories, Bibi’s pitch book and a receptive President interested in glory hunting versus managing risk/reward.

 

In short the judgement of Epic Fury as an ill advised boondoggle is not some after the fact exercise….there is extensive evidence now that prior to Epic Fury the President was ably advised about how ill advised it was and how likely to fail it was!

 

Ah, ok, this makes sense to me, and what @Spekulatius says.  Essentially, my probability estimate was way off, which explains the discrepancy in our views.

[ourkid8]

6 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Sure, but the US needs wars to keep money moving and people distracted. 

Thats a whole different topic which will eventually lead to their downfall but the bigger issue right now is foreign interference in US politics. Do you agree? 

 

I know you got the point of my message  

 

Edited 14 hours ago by ourkid8

[dwy000]

5 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Sure, but the US needs wars to keep money moving and people distracted. 

Cuba should declare war with the US.  They definitely need the money. 

[Maverick47]

12 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

Abraham Lincoln, incidentally the first ever Republican, was a voracious reader. He had less than one year of formal education before reaching the age of 18. Most of what that great man knew came from a book.

Of course some of our favorite heroes here, being both Buffett and Munger, essentially devoted their entire lives to reading.

Has Donald Trump read a single book in his whole life? The same man who is making unilateral, world defining decisions near daily, has he ever read one book? One? Newspapers? Financial statements, periodicals, literally anything that would give him the knowledge required to make a good decision? Anything?

Maybe he read The Cat in the Hat.

Food for thought, @Blake Hampton!
 

As someone who loves reading, I’d like to think that you’re not altogether wrong in pointing out the challenges with the apparent disinterest in it on the part of either the average American or many of our leaders.

 

And a love of reading and lifelong learning can probably be connected somewhat to an above average level of personal intelligence while not being a reader might be correlated with a below average level of intelligence.
 

But I’m also reminded of Buffett’s comments about what characteristics he looks for in an ideal employee:  energy, integrity and intelligence.

 

 And if a candidate is missing one characteristic in particular (integrity) he  really didn’t want him (or her) to have either of the other two.

 

I guess what I’m saying is, given his lack of personal integrity, I’m not terribly upset that the President lacks an interest in reading.

 

I do wish, however, that  our dear leader would spend much more of his time sleeping or playing golf than he already does….
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lazarus]

19 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

 

I'm starting to realize that much of human behavior is actually inverse to itself: extreme arrogance masking insecurity, anger veiling fear, that sort of thing.

 

Is this why you repeatedly make a point of claiming so many people are stupid?

[Blake Hampton]

3 hours ago, Maverick47 said:

Food for thought, @Blake Hampton!
 

As someone who loves reading, I’d like to think that you’re not altogether wrong in pointing out the challenges with the apparent disinterest in it on the part of either the average American or many of our leaders.

 

And a love of reading and lifelong learning can probably be connected somewhat to an above average level of personal intelligence while not being a reader might be correlated with a below average level of intelligence.
 

But I’m also reminded of Buffett’s comments about what characteristics he looks for in an ideal employee:  energy, integrity and intelligence.

 

 And if a candidate is missing one characteristic in particular (integrity) he  really didn’t want him (or her) to have either of the other two.

 

I guess what I’m saying is, given his lack of personal integrity, I’m not terribly upset that the President lacks an interest in reading.

 

I do wish, however, that  our dear leader would spend much more of his time sleeping or playing golf than he already does….

 

I spent nearly my entire childhood growing up with older people. My parents ran into their own set of problems very early in my life, and I subsequently moved in with and became adopted by my grandparents. I lived with them until I was about 16 years old, experienced some events that made me want to live somewhere else, moved in with my dad for about a year or so, and then actually came back to live with my great-grandma. Now that was an interesting experience. Under the age of 20, I probably spent 18 to 19 of those years living with grandparents.

Where am I going with this?

If there is one thing that I've learned having spent so much time living with older people, it's that change does not come easily to them, and oftentimes it's goddamn near impossible. For better or for worse, the vast majority of older adults are largely stuck in their ways.

 

The same of course applies to our now 80-year-old president. I see him as the worst combination of Buffett's trifecta that you mentioned: he is one of the most incompetent people I have ever seen, he is corrupt to the core, and though it seems he's falling asleep quite a bit here lately, I would say he is boundless with energy. Now that is a man who is dangerous, especially so as the president of the United States of America.

I was reading a book late last night that talked about the events that took place during the Pandemic and shortly thereafter. It was still somehow shocking to me how Trump acted during that period, and just how erratic his actions were given the circumstances. It dawned on me that this is a man who has decided his character. He is who he is. There is not a scenario where Trump is going to have some epiphany where he suddenly wants to do good by the American people. Trump will engineer chaos; you can count on it. He will not change.

[Blake Hampton]

13 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Is this why you repeatedly make a point of claiming so many people are stupid?

 

Not "many people", just the Trumpers.

[changegonnacome]

Read the 14-point draft agreement between the US and Iran -

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/middleeast/us-iran-war-mou-text-intl

 

The simple question remains for those ascribed to the Fox News/Iran totally defeated and on its knees narrative.......if thats the case why did the United States just give away all its leverage here and kick every single major nuclear issues down the road here (& if you think Phase 2 is going to wrap up in 60 days I've got a nuclear bomb in my basement to sell you!)? 

[adesigar]

58 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

Read the 14-point draft agreement between the US and Iran -

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/middleeast/us-iran-war-mou-text-intl

 

The simple question remains for those ascribed to the Fox News/Iran totally defeated and on its knees narrative.......if thats the case why did the United States just give away all its leverage here and kick every single major nuclear issues down the road here (& if you think Phase 2 is going to wrap up in 60 days I've got a nuclear bomb in my basement to sell you!)? 

 

Where are the MAGA morons that have been whining for the last decade about Obama releasing 1.7 Billion? Waiting to see them twist themselves into pretzels to explain how this is called "Winning and is the "Art of the Deal". I guess they haven't posted yet because they are waiting for FAUX News to give them the spin.

[73 Reds]

1 hour ago, Blake Hampton said:

 

I spent nearly my entire childhood growing up with older people. My parents ran into their own set of problems very early in my life, and I subsequently moved in with and became adopted by my grandparents. I lived with them until I was about 16 years old, experienced some events that made me want to live somewhere else, moved in with my dad for about a year or so, and then actually came back to live with my great-grandma. Now that was an interesting experience. Under the age of 20, I probably spent 18 to 19 of those years living with grandparents.

Where am I going with this?

If there is one thing that I've learned having spent so much time living with older people, it's that change does not come easily to them, and oftentimes it's goddamn near impossible. For better or for worse, the vast majority of older adults are largely stuck in their ways.

 

The same of course applies to our now 80-year-old president. I see him as the worst combination of Buffett's trifecta that you mentioned: he is one of the most incompetent people I have ever seen, he is corrupt to the core, and though it seems he's falling asleep quite a bit here lately, I would say he is boundless with energy. Now that is a man who is dangerous, especially so as the president of the United States of America.

I was reading a book late last night that talked about the events that took place during the Pandemic and shortly thereafter. It was still somehow shocking to me how Trump acted during that period, and just how erratic his actions were given the circumstances. It dawned on me that this is a man who has decided his character. He is who he is. There is not a scenario where Trump is going to have some epiphany where he suddenly wants to do good by the American people. Trump will engineer chaos; you can count on it. He will not change.

Blake, older people are often "set in their ways" as you put it because they learn from experience.  Younger people often don't have the experience to learn from.

[73 Reds]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

Read the 14-point draft agreement between the US and Iran -

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/17/middleeast/us-iran-war-mou-text-intl

 

The simple question remains for those ascribed to the Fox News/Iran totally defeated and on its knees narrative.......if thats the case why did the United States just give away all its leverage here and kick every single major nuclear issues down the road here (& if you think Phase 2 is going to wrap up in 60 days I've got a nuclear bomb in my basement to sell you!)? 

Change, [if this truly is the text] it is an MOU.  We've got to start somewhere.  No one is giving up any leverage and as you know, an MOU is subject to cancellation, revocation and/or amendment at any time and for any reason.  There is nothing binding here, though the US recognizes that a starting point is necessary in order to get to Step 2.  Not sure why anyone is reading more into this.  IMO, something is better than nothing but only marginally so given who we are dealing with.

[cubsfan]

27 minutes ago, adesigar said:

 

Where are the MAGA morons that have been whining for the last decade about Obama releasing 1.7 Billion? Waiting to see them twist themselves into pretzels to explain how this is called "Winning and is the "Art of the Deal". I guess they haven't posted yet because they are waiting for FAUX News to give them the spin.

 

Chumps like you will always declare victory in spite of the horrific devastation inflicted upon Iran.

 

Ayatollah dead

Half the IRGC leaders dead

Air defenses destroyed

Air Force destroyed

Navy destroyed

Nuclear facilities destroyed

Arms manufacturing destroyed

Currency worthless

Inflation 100%+

 

Iran is in fine shape

 

And to think we have not even hit the enforcement phase - something the coward Obama/Biden never dare touch.

[dwy000]

16 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Change, [if this truly is the text] it is an MOU.  We've got to start somewhere.  No one is giving up any leverage and as you know, an MOU is subject to cancellation, revocation and/or amendment at any time and for any reason.  There is nothing binding here, though the US recognizes that a starting point is necessary in order to get to Step 2.  Not sure why anyone is reading more into this.  IMO, something is better than nothing but only marginally so given who we are dealing with.

They are releasing restricted $ as part of the MOU.  So Iran is getting paid to negotiate for 60 days regardless of outcome or if a deal gets reached. Thats a huge amount of leverage being given up.  The rest of the terms are basically the US eliminating trade restrictions and setting up a $300bn fund for going back to where things were 3 months ago.  There is literally zero that the US gains vs 3 months ago but they give up a ton.  

 

Countries and going to line up to go to war with the US if they get to negotiate outcomes like this!!

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

They are releasing restricted $ as part of the MOU.  So Iran is getting paid to negotiate for 60 days regardless of outcome or if a deal gets reached. Thats a huge amount of leverage being given up.  The rest of the terms are basically the US eliminating trade restrictions and setting up a $300bn fund for going back to where things were 3 months ago.  There is literally zero that the US gains vs 3 months ago but they give up a ton.  

 

Countries and going to line up to go to war with the US if they get to negotiate outcomes like this!!

They're getting a little bit of money in exchange for showing a little bit of good faith.  Nothing more.  Again, we're at Square -0-.  In order to get to Square 1, something has to give.  If normal shipping resumes through the SOH, oil prices will come down and a lot of pressure on and from other countries will ease.  Otherwise an MOU is an agreement to negotiate.  Until now Iran has demonstrated -0- good faith.  Any MOU is intended to allow them to demonstrate something more than -0- good faith if they want to survive.

[dwy000]

2 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

They're getting a little bit of money in exchange for showing a little bit of good faith.  Nothing more.  Again, we're at Square -0-.  In order to get to Square 1, something has to give.  If normal shipping resumes through the SOH, oil prices will come down and a lot of pressure on and from other countries will ease.  Otherwise an MOU is an agreement to negotiate.  Until now Iran has demonstrated -0- good faith.  Any MOU is intended to allow them to demonstrate something more than -0- good faith if they want to survive.

That "little bit of money" is many multiples of the restricted funds Obama released and people freaked out about. For nothing. Literally agreeing to talk.  The US is paying $bns to a country we attacked to come to the table and talk. That is just embarrassing for a supposed superpower. 

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

That "little bit of money" is many multiples of the restricted funds Obama released and people freaked out about. For nothing. Literally agreeing to talk.  The US is paying $bns to a country we attacked to come to the table and talk. That is just embarrassing for a supposed superpower. 

We've got them to the table.  You're focusing on the wrong thing entirely.  Seriously doubt that they get the full proceeds in one lump sum and so what?  Do you have any better ideas?

[dwy000]

We got them to the table?????  Thats considered a win now?  The US, the world's largest super power, attacks a country and then has to pay them - not to give anything up, just simply to come to the table.  Who cares if its a lump sum or over time.  We are paying a country we attacked to talk to us.  Not to mention what we want to talk about is how much more we will give them to simply go back to where things were 3 months ago!  Sooooo embarrassing.  This is beyond capitulation.  The incompetence of this administration just cant find a bottom. 

[changegonnacome]

42 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Change, [if this truly is the text] it is an MOU.  We've got to start somewhere. 

 

Disagree - if you are truly in the driving seat with all the leverage and your opponent is on its knees.....you start with bombing (as we did), you proceed to a blockade of the blockade and put your opponent more pressure (as we did).....and all that only ends with the nuclear deal signed with a bow on it.

 

In any negotiation with supposed asymmetry in leverage/power and where you've spent $100bn and not insignificant chaos and disruption to create leverage.....you do not walk away with MOU, you walk away with deal. 

 

You walk away with an MOU IMO if all your leverage talk, defeated talk was bullshit and your opponent imposed a form of leverage and power over you that made you tap out with an MOU versus a deal.

 

Edited 37 minutes ago by changegonnacome

[73 Reds]

Just now, dwy000 said:

We got them to the table?????  Thats considered a win now?  The US, the world's largest super power, attacks a country and then has to pay them - not to give anything up, just simply to come to the table.  Who cares if its a lump sum or over time.  We are paying a country we attacked to talk to us.  Not to mention what we want to talk about is how much more we will give them to simply go back to where things were 3 months ago!  Sooooo embarrassing.  This is beyond capitulation.  The incompetence of this administration just cant find a bottom. 

Vance expressly stated that we (the US) are not paying them.  Well see.  I take it you don't have any better ideas and you're back to your old self.  Personally, I'd prefer the military approach and not negotiate with them at all.  But if we have to negotiate, this is the way its done.  

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Disagree - if you are truly in the driving seat with all the leverage and your opponent is on its knees.....you start with bombing (as we did), you proceed to a blockade of the blockade and put your opponent more pressure (as we did).....and all that only ends with the nuclear deal signed with a bow on it.

 

In any negotiation with supposed asymmetry in leverage/power and where you've spent $100bn and not insignificant chaos and disruption to create leverage.....you do not walk away with MOU, you walk away with deal. 

 

You walk away with an MOU IMO if all your leverage talk, defeated talk was bullshit and your opponent imposed a form of leverage and power over you that made you tap out with an MOU versus a deal.

 

I agree and as stated multiple times, would prefer the military approach.  But as you know full well, politics is what drives this.

[dwy000]

4 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Vance expressly stated that we (the US) are not paying them.  Well see.  I take it you don't have any better ideas and you're back to your old self.  Personally, I'd prefer the military approach and not negotiate with them at all.  But if we have to negotiate, this is the way its done.  

We are not "paying" them is a technicality. We are releasing restricted funds back them.  From their perspective they are receiving $bns of dollars for just coming to the table. 

 

The fact that we are arguing over how terrible this is and whether there are "better ideas" for a situation that we should not even be in is ridiculous.  Its mind boggling incompetence. 

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, dwy000 said:

We are not "paying" them is a technicality. We are releasing restricted funds back them.  From their perspective they are receiving $bns of dollars for just coming to the table. 

 

The fact that we are arguing over how terrible this is and whether there are "better ideas" for a situation that we should not even be in is ridiculous.  Its mind boggling incompetence. 

Still waiting for your better idea as to how to solve the Iran problem.  Monday morning quarterbacks are worth what they're paid.

[dwy000]

11 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Still waiting for your better idea as to how to solve the Iran problem.  Monday morning quarterbacks are worth what they're paid.

I dont have a better solution. Im not a middle east expert.  But as an American Im very much allowed to opine on how utterly horrible and embarrassing this solution is.  And the fact that this might be the best option only reiterates how incompetent the administration who painted us into this corner is.