14 ms·

The worst part is the sharp changes in the price being traded aren't achieved by magic but rather with guns & actual human suffering

by Havoc 6mo ago

vkou 6mo ago
The war must continue in order to bring us to the status quo that was in place before we started the war. I hope that everyone responsible for this is enjoying every cent of what they get to pay at the pumps.
- skinfaxi 6mo ago
  > I hope that everyone responsible for this is enjoying every cent of what they get to pay at the pumps. As if the people responsible actually feel the impact of their choices to that degree.
  - hrldcpr 6mo ago
    Arguably people who voted for Trump are somewhat responsible, and include a lot of car drivers. (Not to imply that many Democrat politicians aren't also owned by AIPAC and big business.)
    - wuft 6mo ago
      [dead]
    - cbdevidal 6mo ago
      I didn’t vote for Trump but I don’t blame the voters. I don’t think many people foresaw him doing this on either side of the political aisle. Other stuff we disapprove of, yes. But not this. I say that because he had famously resisted to enter extended conflict in his first term. Maybe he wanted to but now has the chance since he’s in his final years. (At least, I hope it’s his final years.) But I didn’t hear anyone predicting this before his second term.
      - fabian2k 6mo ago
        It was obvious that Trump is unstable and has extreme and volatile views on foreign policy. So yes, I think it is entirely fair to blame anyone that voted for Trump in the last election.
      - saynay 6mo ago
        It was pretty obvious he was wanting to enter a conflict with someone, and was mostly held back in his first term by the actual professionals in his cabinet at that time. But the guy wanted a military parade with tanks rolling through DC on his birthday, wanted to nuke a hurricane, and forcibly annex Greenland. It isn't really surprising that once he replaced the sane people with sycophants, he would start something.
        marcosdumay 6mo ago
        Or, more specifically, by 2020 he was sending military boats to attack Iranian targets and trying to force Russia to respond. He only stopped because of COVID.
        cbdevidal 6mo ago
        If it were that obvious we would have specifically heard it it predicted. Maybe someone did but I didn’t hear it, and I listen to politics daily. Expressing a desire to take Greenland but not actually doing so was a move out of his book Art of the Deal.
        throwtyy 6mo ago
        The million dollar question is how america occupies Greenland. As always Europe does nothing
        k12sosse 6mo ago
        America attacks Greenland? Europe liberating bases on their soil would be the obvious response
  - kelvinjps10 6mo ago
    Maybe at least the people that put them in power (voters). But being honest, it wasn't just voters.
    - bobthepanda 6mo ago
      Nonvoters would win the Electoral College if that was a thing.
      - jojomodding 6mo ago
        Nonvoters implicitly consent to the outcome ahead of time. Which means that they can carry part of the blame--if they didn't like it they could have voted against it.
      - zzrrt 6mo ago
        Hot take: if <80% of eligible voters show up, nobody wins and the same politicians stay in office for another year, even if term limits would normally apply.
        bluefirebrand 6mo ago
        How about instead it immediately triggers another new election and the people who ran previously are not eligible to run ever again
        pjc50 6mo ago
        Slightly less left field proposal: failure to pass a budget should immediately force fresh elections (both houses plus presidency), as it would in a Parliamentary system. None of this "shutdown" nonsense.
        deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
        tardedmeme 6mo ago
- cm2187 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - adrian_b 6mo ago
    And killing Iranians and destroying their assets helps how the Iranian opposition?
    - philipallstar 6mo ago
      The Iranian opposition is against Iranians.
  - gambiting 6mo ago
    Can you formulate in a short paragraph, why you think US attacked Iran, exactly.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
  - gmerc 6mo ago
    I thought it was a lot more than that, Gaza is not a small place
  - snapcaster 6mo ago
    [flagged]
  - sirtaj 6mo ago
    Odd thing to blame on a bunch of schoolgirls!
  - simonh 6mo ago
    Almost all the troops that committed those massacres are still there, and if anything even more ready and willing to do it all over again, and have a leadership ready to give the order.
  - customguy 6mo ago
- ericmay 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - therobots927 6mo ago
    Maybe if Iran had a nuke Israel would cut back on sexual torture of detainees and indiscriminate bombing of vast swaths of densely populated land. And maybe the US would think twice about spending $10 trillion fighting pointless wars in the region. I’m in favor of that scenario.
    - ericmay 6mo ago
      > Maybe if Iran had a nuke Israel would cut back on sexual torture of detainees and indiscriminate bombing of vast swaths of densely populated land. Aside from the fact that Iran and its proxies do this, you have to remember that Israel very likely has nukes and so if Iran gets a nuke what exactly are they going to do with it in the scenario you described? Nuke Tel Aviv? Israel would just nuke them back. > And maybe the US would think twice about spending $10 trillion fighting pointless wars in the region. Idk if your figure is right, seems too high, but you are incorrect here because if Iran had a nuke the US could still invade Iraq or Afghanistan. And honestly maybe it wasn't worth the money but Iraq is doing much better, has a functioning parliament, &c. Maybe that's the problem - it's like Iran's regime is jealous that people can live in peace and don't have to be whipped up into a fury to go murder other people and Iraq is just showing them how it's done. It reminds me of the former Soviet countries where Russia sees they are doing much better without Russia and gets jealous.
      - therobots927 6mo ago
        I was not implying that Iran would or should use nuclear weapons. Only acquire them. For the same reason I think it’s a good thing the USSR acquired nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction has proven to be incredibly effective at preventing the use of nuclear weapons, and preventing hot war (not proxy wars though). I think if Iran acquired nuclear weapons the region would stabilize. Israel would be forced to stop the genocide and land grabs, because they would no longer hold a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region. Regarding the cost of the Iraq war it was at least $3T. Likely a lot more. My $10T estimate isn’t exactly mainstream but $3T is a solid floor: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-3-trillion-and-beyond https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-... “Maybe it wasn’t worth the money” You say that casually. As of $3 trillion wouldn’t have dramatically improved the lives of tens of millions of Americans. As opposed to killing several thousand military members and a million+ Iraqi civilians. Evil really is pretty banal I guess.
- an0malous 6mo ago
  A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning. I’m not defending their poor judgement of an infamous con artist (I didn’t vote for Trump) but we should ask ourselves how democracy can function if candidates can just make things up during campaigns and do the complete opposite when they’re elected. We should also ask ourselves who really wanted this war and how they have so much leverage over our country to instigate it when 50-60% of Americans do not support it. We should ask how it’s possible that such unpopular wars always seem to have bipartisan support. We should also ask ourselves how Congress failed to stop this war which has been illegally executed without congressional approval. It’s all very curious if you think about it. We can’t just keep finger pointing at the other party whenever things go wrong. There are systemic issues and outside influences destroying this country. Some people think this will all be fixed when democrats take over again in November but they’re wrong and the cycle will continue just with a more presentable veneer of decency.
  - kingleopold 6mo ago
    "lying is free" and it has no consequences for these people. whether it is WMDs or war or fiat money printing with trillions or killing millions. What you people call justice is, well it's obv. so no need to write about it. These facts dont change with two party or three party, it's cultural btw. We all know how some cultures are violent and backwards to each other? some or like this, just different culture
  - vkou 6mo ago
    > A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning. That was just their nice-sounding excuse for voting for him. It's not like they are going to go out and say that they like him because of his jingoistic machismo authoritarian 'strong'-man bullshit. They'll performatively grumble for a bit, but are all ready to vote for the guy a fourth time in 2028.
    - mrguyorama 6mo ago
      Well the simple reason they voted for him is that they are all extremely rich capital owners who wanted his tax cuts. That's the same reason that farm megacorps voted for him even though he destroyed tens of billions of farm revenue with his stupidity in trade wars. Rich people would rather the country burn than pay 1% more in taxes. It's purely ideological too, as they regularly spend tons to save a little in taxes.
- PunchyHamster 6mo ago
  they earned millions off it, how would they even feel fuel price ?
leonidasrup 6mo ago
Someone has taken the Rothschild motto too literally: “Buy when there is blood in the streets, even if it is your own.” — Baron Nathan Rothschild https://medium.com/@douglasp.schwartz/buy-when-theres-blood-in-the-streets-the-timeless-principles-behind-buying-low-and-selling-high-714f798e1a80 https://medium.com/@douglasp.schwartz/buy-when-theres-blood-...
- joshrw 6mo ago
  That’s not what that quote means. It means even if your portfolio is down you should keep buying.
  - debo_ 6mo ago
    That's what they meant by "too literally."
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YXivtoSkuVQ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YXivtoSkuVQ
  - limbero 6mo ago
    No, the "quote" (more like anonymous anecdote) is quite literally about blood running in the streets presenting an opportunity to buy assets at reduced cost.
- KKKKkkkk1 6mo ago
  source?
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- breppp 6mo ago
  [flagged]
aaron695 6mo ago
[dead]

The worst part is the sharp changes in the price being traded aren't achieved by magic but rather with guns & actual human suffering

by Havoc 6mo ago

The worst part is the sharp changes in the price being traded aren't achieved by magic but rather with guns & actual human suffering

vkou 6mo ago

The war must continue in order to bring us to the status quo that was in place before we started the war. I hope that everyone responsible for this is enjoying every cent of what they get to pay at the pumps.

skinfaxi 6mo ago
> I hope that everyone responsible for this is enjoying every cent of what they get to pay at the pumps. As if the people responsible actually feel the impact of their choices to that degree.
- hrldcpr 6mo ago
  Arguably people who voted for Trump are somewhat responsible, and include a lot of car drivers. (Not to imply that many Democrat politicians aren't also owned by AIPAC and big business.)
  - wuft 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - cbdevidal 6mo ago
    I didn’t vote for Trump but I don’t blame the voters. I don’t think many people foresaw him doing this on either side of the political aisle. Other stuff we disapprove of, yes. But not this. I say that because he had famously resisted to enter extended conflict in his first term. Maybe he wanted to but now has the chance since he’s in his final years. (At least, I hope it’s his final years.) But I didn’t hear anyone predicting this before his second term.
    - fabian2k 6mo ago
      It was obvious that Trump is unstable and has extreme and volatile views on foreign policy. So yes, I think it is entirely fair to blame anyone that voted for Trump in the last election.
    - saynay 6mo ago
      It was pretty obvious he was wanting to enter a conflict with someone, and was mostly held back in his first term by the actual professionals in his cabinet at that time. But the guy wanted a military parade with tanks rolling through DC on his birthday, wanted to nuke a hurricane, and forcibly annex Greenland. It isn't really surprising that once he replaced the sane people with sycophants, he would start something.
      - marcosdumay 6mo ago
        Or, more specifically, by 2020 he was sending military boats to attack Iranian targets and trying to force Russia to respond. He only stopped because of COVID.
        cbdevidal 6mo ago
        If it were that obvious we would have specifically heard it it predicted. Maybe someone did but I didn’t hear it, and I listen to politics daily. Expressing a desire to take Greenland but not actually doing so was a move out of his book Art of the Deal.
        throwtyy 6mo ago
        The million dollar question is how america occupies Greenland. As always Europe does nothing
        k12sosse 6mo ago
        America attacks Greenland? Europe liberating bases on their soil would be the obvious response
- kelvinjps10 6mo ago
  Maybe at least the people that put them in power (voters). But being honest, it wasn't just voters.
  - bobthepanda 6mo ago
    Nonvoters would win the Electoral College if that was a thing.
    - jojomodding 6mo ago
      Nonvoters implicitly consent to the outcome ahead of time. Which means that they can carry part of the blame--if they didn't like it they could have voted against it.
    - zzrrt 6mo ago
      Hot take: if <80% of eligible voters show up, nobody wins and the same politicians stay in office for another year, even if term limits would normally apply.
      - bluefirebrand 6mo ago
        How about instead it immediately triggers another new election and the people who ran previously are not eligible to run ever again
        pjc50 6mo ago
        Slightly less left field proposal: failure to pass a budget should immediately force fresh elections (both houses plus presidency), as it would in a Parliamentary system. None of this "shutdown" nonsense.
        deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - tardedmeme 6mo ago
cm2187 6mo ago
[flagged]
- adrian_b 6mo ago
  And killing Iranians and destroying their assets helps how the Iranian opposition?
  - philipallstar 6mo ago
    The Iranian opposition is against Iranians.
- gambiting 6mo ago
  Can you formulate in a short paragraph, why you think US attacked Iran, exactly.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- gmerc 6mo ago
  I thought it was a lot more than that, Gaza is not a small place
- snapcaster 6mo ago
  [flagged]
- sirtaj 6mo ago
  Odd thing to blame on a bunch of schoolgirls!
- simonh 6mo ago
  Almost all the troops that committed those massacres are still there, and if anything even more ready and willing to do it all over again, and have a leadership ready to give the order.
- customguy 6mo ago
ericmay 6mo ago
[flagged]
- therobots927 6mo ago
  Maybe if Iran had a nuke Israel would cut back on sexual torture of detainees and indiscriminate bombing of vast swaths of densely populated land. And maybe the US would think twice about spending $10 trillion fighting pointless wars in the region. I’m in favor of that scenario.
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    > Maybe if Iran had a nuke Israel would cut back on sexual torture of detainees and indiscriminate bombing of vast swaths of densely populated land. Aside from the fact that Iran and its proxies do this, you have to remember that Israel very likely has nukes and so if Iran gets a nuke what exactly are they going to do with it in the scenario you described? Nuke Tel Aviv? Israel would just nuke them back. > And maybe the US would think twice about spending $10 trillion fighting pointless wars in the region. Idk if your figure is right, seems too high, but you are incorrect here because if Iran had a nuke the US could still invade Iraq or Afghanistan. And honestly maybe it wasn't worth the money but Iraq is doing much better, has a functioning parliament, &c. Maybe that's the problem - it's like Iran's regime is jealous that people can live in peace and don't have to be whipped up into a fury to go murder other people and Iraq is just showing them how it's done. It reminds me of the former Soviet countries where Russia sees they are doing much better without Russia and gets jealous.
    - therobots927 6mo ago
      I was not implying that Iran would or should use nuclear weapons. Only acquire them. For the same reason I think it’s a good thing the USSR acquired nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction has proven to be incredibly effective at preventing the use of nuclear weapons, and preventing hot war (not proxy wars though). I think if Iran acquired nuclear weapons the region would stabilize. Israel would be forced to stop the genocide and land grabs, because they would no longer hold a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region. Regarding the cost of the Iraq war it was at least $3T. Likely a lot more. My $10T estimate isn’t exactly mainstream but $3T is a solid floor: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-3-trillion-and-beyond https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-... “Maybe it wasn’t worth the money” You say that casually. As of $3 trillion wouldn’t have dramatically improved the lives of tens of millions of Americans. As opposed to killing several thousand military members and a million+ Iraqi civilians. Evil really is pretty banal I guess.
an0malous 6mo ago
A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning. I’m not defending their poor judgement of an infamous con artist (I didn’t vote for Trump) but we should ask ourselves how democracy can function if candidates can just make things up during campaigns and do the complete opposite when they’re elected. We should also ask ourselves who really wanted this war and how they have so much leverage over our country to instigate it when 50-60% of Americans do not support it. We should ask how it’s possible that such unpopular wars always seem to have bipartisan support. We should also ask ourselves how Congress failed to stop this war which has been illegally executed without congressional approval. It’s all very curious if you think about it. We can’t just keep finger pointing at the other party whenever things go wrong. There are systemic issues and outside influences destroying this country. Some people think this will all be fixed when democrats take over again in November but they’re wrong and the cycle will continue just with a more presentable veneer of decency.
- kingleopold 6mo ago
  "lying is free" and it has no consequences for these people. whether it is WMDs or war or fiat money printing with trillions or killing millions. What you people call justice is, well it's obv. so no need to write about it. These facts dont change with two party or three party, it's cultural btw. We all know how some cultures are violent and backwards to each other? some or like this, just different culture
- vkou 6mo ago
  > A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning. That was just their nice-sounding excuse for voting for him. It's not like they are going to go out and say that they like him because of his jingoistic machismo authoritarian 'strong'-man bullshit. They'll performatively grumble for a bit, but are all ready to vote for the guy a fourth time in 2028.
  - mrguyorama 6mo ago
    Well the simple reason they voted for him is that they are all extremely rich capital owners who wanted his tax cuts. That's the same reason that farm megacorps voted for him even though he destroyed tens of billions of farm revenue with his stupidity in trade wars. Rich people would rather the country burn than pay 1% more in taxes. It's purely ideological too, as they regularly spend tons to save a little in taxes.
PunchyHamster 6mo ago
they earned millions off it, how would they even feel fuel price ?

leonidasrup 6mo ago

Someone has taken the Rothschild motto too literally: “Buy when there is blood in the streets, even if it is your own.” — Baron Nathan Rothschild https://medium.com/@douglasp.schwartz/buy-when-theres-blood-in-the-streets-the-timeless-principles-behind-buying-low-and-selling-high-714f798e1a80 https://medium.com/@douglasp.schwartz/buy-when-theres-blood-...

joshrw 6mo ago
That’s not what that quote means. It means even if your portfolio is down you should keep buying.
- debo_ 6mo ago
  That's what they meant by "too literally."
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 6mo ago
  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YXivtoSkuVQ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YXivtoSkuVQ
- limbero 6mo ago
  No, the "quote" (more like anonymous anecdote) is quite literally about blood running in the streets presenting an opportunity to buy assets at reduced cost.
KKKKkkkk1 6mo ago
source?
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
breppp 6mo ago
[flagged]

aaron695 6mo ago

[dead]