261–270 of 419 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She was targeted because James Comey wanted to leverage her fame for his own career advancement. Not justifying what she did, but it’s no coincidence that she got roped.
I may simply be ignorant of the details of this case, but I never heard James Comey's name until ~October of 2016.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And rebuilding the gulf should be quite profitable Wait. I've heard this story before. Let's ask any of the recently "liberated" countries how that worked out for them...
Actually, you can just look in Iraq, and CNOOC, PetroChina, and Zhongman. Companies will benefit, just not American ones. And the US will clearly have failed to protect allies and project force in the Gulf. If the bulk of OPEC moves to a basket currency trade to ally more with PRC, India, and Russia that will be an astonishing failure. I wouldn't have thought even Trump and this Republican administration was incompet…
I'm growing pessimistic that this kind of activity + the egregious presidential-level crypto scams will never see justice. What's the path for that, really?
I think it's likely that they'll see justice in a chaotic way , ie not connected to the specific crime. Most likely outcome is that they make huge paper profits that are then absolutely worthless because the dollar collapses and the property rights that enforce the wealth they gained from these transactions disappear as the government is toppled. Another likely outcome is that they get in the habit of doing criminal…
They believe, rightly or not that they can withdraw from the world with their wealth more or less in one piece to some kind of safe zone.
This administration has taken grift and corruption to a level only seen in banana republics. I seriously don't know how you come back from this. GOP voters seem to be openly cheering it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“It’s not that complicated. Give up your principles for short term house cleaning.” People with strong political beliefs are going to turn their head to keep their side in power rather than put someone in power that will push policies they are fundamentally against. Blagojevich was not replaced by a Republican. At this point presidential elections are won by getting members of the other side to stay home. So encourag…
Why are you appending a sentence I never said within your quote of my position? Your comment reads like you are arguing with yourself. I never suggested anything to the contrary of much of what you write, so frankly I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I suggest you re-read my comment in full as I think we are predominantly in agreement.
"this is an interpretion"
> this is a quote
Hopefully this clears things up.
I'm not sure if this is parody or not, but someone admitted to it. These days it wouldn't surprise me if it were this brazen. https://x.com/gothburz/status/2036413487530831899
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if a ground invasion goes they will destroy oil trade and everyone is screwed. The war should not be won. it should be ended before everyone loses.
The US would not win a ground war in Iran. Before every US war, people tend to think the US military and their $800 billion/year budget are unbeatable. But look at outcomes of significant US ground wars since WWII - only one clear victory: * Korea: Stalemate, which is still a problem now 70 years later * Vietnam: Loss * Gulf War: Victory * Afganistan: Loss, after 20 years of fighting * Iraq: Mixed results after 8 yea…
It's why WTI crude never exceeds $100/barrel. Every time it gets that high the insider in the administration shorts it and the administration announces a new policy delaying more strikes.
Much above $80 and shale oil becomes highly profitable. So swing producers like the US act as a soft ceiling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you appending a sentence I never said within your quote of my position? Your comment reads like you are arguing with yourself. I never suggested anything to the contrary of much of what you write, so frankly I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I suggest you re-read my comment in full as I think we are predominantly in agreement.
It's a common HN convention to read: "this is an interpretion" > this is a quote Hopefully this clears things up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are at war because Hezbollah attacked... again.
Israel has been bombing (and conducting raids in?) Lebanon for years. They attacked Hezbollah's ally, Iran. And Hezbollah has been attacking Israel for years. It's not true that the conflict began with Hezbollah's recent actions.