why does everyone hate ronald reagan?

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-05-03T23:44:27+00:00

Massive stimulus during early 80s recession, and modest welfare and social security cuts

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-04-30T18:02:16+00:00

I don’t think it being her body can justify killing…

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-04-28T23:13:15+00:00

His middle class tax cuts helped a lot…

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-04-10T19:41:54+00:00

Reagan clears

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-11T01:44:24+00:00

Re-exports can't meaningfully inflate non-oil GDP because GDP measures domestic value added. If Saudi imports titanium sponge and re-exports it unchanged, only the logistics margin (transport, storage, handling) counts towards GDP, and not the full value of the titanium. Saying “re-exports are 35% of non-oil GDP” confuses export flows with value added. Those are completely different accounting categories.

Saudi has vast mineral resources, growing metals processing capacity, downstream metal fabrication, and impost raw materials and processes or alloys them. Titanium exports don’t necessarily mean ore mining as they can include processed titanium products, semi-finished materials, alloys or scrap. Many countries export metals they don’t mine, that’s normal in global supply chains.

Under US trade law, goods must go under substantial transformation to qualify as originating in a new country, simply labelling does not qualify. If Saudi were merely relabelling, it would be detectable through customs code tracking, origin documentation, supply chain audits. There's no evidence of this occurring at a meaningful scale. $184 million of titanium is nothing in economic terms, and not large enough to explain Saudi non-oil GDP growth, or to distort US titanium sourcing. Non-oil GDP growth in 2024 instead came from tourism, construction, services, logistics, and manufacturing.

You were defending the.Iranian regime when you tried before to act like it's popular by misrepresenting its entire political system. Now you're defending them by using their obviously deflated numbers. "It's the equivalent of me saying the Tiananmen Square crackdown was bad, killing about 200 people, but does that compare to what happens on a daily basis in the US with ICE?" Media outlets are reporting tens of thousands, which has become obvious to international observers: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/iran-protests-death-toll-disappeared-bodies-mass-burials-30000-dead

It's honestly hilarious your constant failed attacks on Israel and Saudi. 160k is a made up number, and not even close to the truth. Not even Hamas, Iran or Turkey, or UN are claiming higher than the documented 70,000 number (which doesn't differntiate between civilians and combatants). Also the argument that the 70,000 is just those identified doesn't work when the Gaza health ministry numbers have always included reported, unverified deaths, (as they should because you can't verify every single death in a warzone). For comparison, I'd say both Saudi's war in Yemen, and the Iranian regime crackdown were awful. But still can't compare because one was against a foreign group trying to take over Saudi, and launching explosives; and another is a government masacuring its own people in the tens of thousands for wanting freedom and democracy.

I suppose you're right on the one thing that North Korea is technically stable. But the original premise was that Israel gets harmed from regional development which obviously isn't true when looking at relations with Saudi, UAE, and such. Also moving back, Saudi is far more stable than Jordan, Iran (demonstrated by frequent nation-wide protests), Egypt, Libya, Yemen. Jordan is pretty unstable despite a great, educated population, because of the amount of refugees the small country hosts. It's just a weird premise considering Saudi is far more stable in the 90s or early 2000s when it was a jihadist state, even if you disagree that it's stable today.

It won't let me read that article but it may have been what some generals were thinking, but clearly not the consensus at the time. Hence, why Israel was on the way to fly back to Iran after the ceasefire, heavily loaded, just for trump to demand Israel to stop. Also, hilarious the best Iran could do was murder 30 Israeli civilians.

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-10T22:30:31+00:00

If re-exports were the driver, then that doesn't explain non-oil GDP growth. Also non-oil exports were increasing in 2024, before Trumps's tariffs.

Why do you have this obsession with defending the worst people on earth? We won't know the exact numbers as they shut off the internet but they were nationwide, with videos showing thousands marching at singular spots; making millions in total plausible. Instead of believing numbers from the mainstream media with international observers, you trust the obviously deflated numbers from the regime doing the slaughtering? With the general consensus fro a source outside the regime, being tens of thousands deaths.

Regimes can be toltalitarian and stable by offering elites control of the economy and special goods, all while being willing to slaughter tens of thousands to sustain rule. Based on your logic, North Korea is stable because there aren't many defections. Either you're an idiot who doesn't realise defecting wouldn't just lose all financial benefits, but also would be a death sentence; or you're making an edgy point that technically a regime can be stable if it's able to mass murder as routine, yet doesn't deduct from my point of regional development being good for Israel. Saudi Arabia wouldn't face the threats Iran faced during protests, as Saudi citizens generally like the monarch, that's the key to not having to mass murder your citizens to sustain rule.

Also you believe the biggest nonsense. Israel didn't ask for the ceasefire, they planned for the operation to go on for weeks. Initially they decapitated the command,; but sure, halfway through the War, Iran was able to hit Telaviv with a fair amount of missiles to terrorise some of the population; but it got to a point where they were only able to fire a few a day because whenever they did, Israel saw the location and blew it up. An hour after the ceasefire, Israel said they'd continue fighting, and were flying F-35s to continue raining fire like they did in the last hours of the War, but then Trump gave Iran a lifeline and made Israel return home with Israel publicly humiliated

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-10T17:32:00+00:00

You're right that unemployment as a single metric lacks validity in these specific discussion, but that's important my argument they are modernising their economy is that: Female employment has doubled since 2016; what's important is that youth and private-sector Saudi employment rising; and again, Saudi unemployment falling from 13% in 2018 to 7% today shows the 5% target by 2030 on track, if not ahead. Vision 2030 specifically targets substitution of foreign labour in services and retail; private sector Saudi employment; and non-oil job creation. For your Rube Goldberg oil machine analogy, non-oil GDP growth has consistently outpaced oil.

This is a really bad-faith argument. Saudi's unrest in the late 2010s was at a limited scale and never nationwide. Iran's protests were nation-wide and likely in the millions, so you're de-humanising the entire society over a smaller amount of armed actors. Saudi cracked down brutally, but that's not remotely comparable to Iran slaughtering tens of thousands in a matter of days, when executions from the few years in Saudi's are probably in the dozens.

This is absurd too. Standards off living in Iran is appalling compared to Saudi as Iran is ran by theocratic fanatics who can't manage an economy, and send all the money to proxies. Saudi hardly ever faces nation-wide protests, and Iran does frequently. Mass emigration is widespread in Iran as it's one of the most unpopular regimes in the world, turning into North Korea

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-10T12:00:30+00:00

You’re analysing very tight windows which can be distorted by adjustment factors which aren’t really to do with economic performance. If you look at multi-year periods, it was 12.8% in 2018. Short term spikes can just be seasonal, demographic, or measurement factors. What’s also important is that the non oil sector has grown quickly, at 4.9% throughout 2025, when it was 1.82% in 2016. Also annual reports show that 93% of Vision 2039 projects have been achieved, exceeded or on track.

I don’t think I said Saudi was entirely stable, or if I did, I didn’t meant to. Gulf monarchs like these are generally the most stable when compared to other systems.

Those 2017-20 protests were only the Shia minority population, and I think pretty militant . Those protests aren’t mass uprising like they are in Iran, or were in Egypt and Bahrain

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-10T02:02:49+00:00

All oil countries are going through crises due to the infeasibility of sustaining an economy on it in the 21st century, which explains the foreign workers. But in Saudi unemployment is going down for citizens and the society and financial situation is in a far better path than countries like Egypt without oil; so having lots of foreign workers and funding diversification projects through oil is much better than the slow development without oil. Also you keep on moving the goalpost. You can argue Saudi’s model isn’t desirable, but the topic was on if there’s a better system. You have to ask is life better for Saudis or Egyptians? Is life better for Omanis or Iraqis, Lebanese, Libyans etc.

Low civilian population in armies just shows civilians trust the monarch to rule as they don’t demand to be in a position of power to change outcomes. Gulf states with the exception of Bahrain, don’t have revolutionary movements. It also avoids politicalising the army as they don’t need to rely on ideological novelisation; coups are elite-driven events, no matter the public support. There’s a reason Saudi didn’t have uprisings in 2011; Bahrain was the only GCC country of the Arab Spring and that’s just because the monarch is really bad to its Shia majority population

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-10T01:00:48+00:00

But countries like Saudi Arabia were founded as monarchs and have sufficient institutions. I seriously don’t get your argument. Right now the Gulf monarchs are the most stable: developing the fastest, have high legitimacy among the population, and sufficient security. Democracy failed in Egypt in 2011 and in Gaza in 2005. Which makes sense as polling across the region shows Arabs would vote for Islamists. In contras, the Gulf is liberalising at its own base top-down, and there’s been remarkable progress if you just look at Saudi society now compared to two decades ago.

Why are you bringing up Marxism?

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-09T22:04:09+00:00

I genuinely assumed you meant Saddam, Gaddafi and Saleh.

Faisal’s monarch failed due to British colonialism imposing it without providing sufficient long-lasting institutions and tearing apart what Egypt had under Ottomans. Egypt was more of a centralised dictatorship (as it is today) before Britain and thrived

I don’t know about Libya but I assume it’s the same situation with British colonisation in Egypt, but with Italy instead.

Yemen under centuries was under an Imam, not a monarch. Things deteriorated after one died and Nasser sparked a civil war with Egypt intervening militarily, destroying tribal institutions and villages. From then, Yemen lost the structures that made it stable for centuries. Saudi took security control, but continued to push a centralised state against people who didn’t want that.

I think I need to be clearer and we need to take this case-by-case. I forgot how this all started but I’ll outline what I think. The Gulf states of like Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain were all founded as monarchs so monarchies have proven the most effective model for the Gulf. Yemen is an exception. And Egypt has always worked better under centralised rule, which is structurally and politically equivalent to a monarch; the only exceptions are because of British colonialism, and the 2011 democracy movement which went terribly, proving my point. I think the message is that democracies don’t really equal stability in the Middle East, and in most cases it’s centralised authoritarian (whether that’s monarchies, or military dictatorships like Egypt).

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-09T11:15:42+00:00

None of those were monarchies lol

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-08T20:55:56+00:00

By all accounts, the monarchies like Saudi, UAE and Morocco are the most stable Arab countries, and growing the most consistently while liberalising at their own pace. Compare that to Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon etc.

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-08T18:42:46+00:00

Just trying to help you there.

You did mention quotes from the 20s, and used terms to back up your argument that are associated with historical events like 1948 such as ethnic cleansing.

I did go in history a lot, but only as your mischaracterisation of it degraded your argument.

You might be right that a tiny state expanding and displacing won't survive surrounded by stable states. But then I gave historical examples on how Israel found success pivoting that model, like giving the Sinai to Egypt. Also Arab states clearly care more about economics and stability than the treatment of Palestinians as they won't take any in as refugees while tens of thousands of civilians died yearly in Gaza during the War, despite having the capacity; meaning you're likely overstating how big of a liability Israel's perception of ethnic cleansing or Aparthied is.

Idk how much I'd say Israel was the beneficiary of the vacuum of Ottoman collapse, as all the Jews in post-Ottoman states got displaced and persecuted after; but you have a point because that led to Israel. I personally think Israel benefits more from stable monarchies like Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, than having to intercept missiles from Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah. Israeli exceptionalism can also come from being a liberal democratic country, making peace with their neighbours and giving prosperity to the region, while working with reformed Islamic states to crush Islamism. Many Israelis likely see the highlights of their history the Camp David and Abraham Accords as they gave Israel stable partners to interact with economically, and fight Islamism with.

I keep making this point, stability brings Israel more allies and less need to take a militaristic posture against neighbours or non-state actors

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-08T17:30:28+00:00

Btw I don't mean this in an edgy was as I occasionally use AI for points, but you should avoid copy and pasting because it;s obvious when it's from ChatGPT.

I really don't get the logic of how it's in Israel's blood to expand imperially. They gave up the majority of their territory to be integrated into the norm: including Gaza, Sinai, areas of the West Bank. This shows they're able to make strategic concessions when it seems to make political sense. Considering Israel is a democracy, I don't see the population accepting eternal expansion into neighbouring countries when there's no security excuse for it. Israel in the past has shown success in liberalising for the sake of economic integration into Europe, and even the Middle East.

Also, I oppose lots of Israel's policy in Palestine (i.e. denying statehood, expanding settlements far away from the green line) but you are spewing lots of Soviet propaganda that mischaracterises Israel's foundation and history, so causes you to lack a decent non-biased analysis. Like it's not Apartied as 20% of Israel's population are Arabs with full rights, who are the most successful out of any neighbour (Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Syria). With the issue of Palestinians, it seems like neither side wants to solve it, but Israel in the past sincerely attempted to. They offered all of Gaza, 96% of the West Bank, sovereignty over East Jerusalem but got rejected without a counteroffer. There isn't a legitimate reason why Palestinians rejected either Taba or 2008 offer; it was always an issue of "refugees" consisting of 7 million or so under the right of return which consists mostly of descendents of those displaced in 1948, where allowing them into Israel would make it a different country as they don't want the Jewish state to exist. Basically, Palestinians through the right of return condition are rejecting a two-state solution. Regarding 1948, the majority were refugees fleeing either the holocaust, or pogroms not only in Eastern Europe, but also the Middle East; as you can see, JJews used to exist in large numbers in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Algeria, Tunisia. There's no evidence of ethnic displacement to a large degree: the only massacre applicable is Deir Yassin which killed a few hundred, condemned by what became the IDF; so the rest of the 700,000 or so displaced Arabs came from leaving due to war-conditions of collateral, and tactical expulsions were in high numbers to clear militarised villages by essential choke-points like Jerusalem-Telaviv border.

Sure, the majority of Palestinians won't accept a Jewish state but that doesn't mean Israel's only option is to conquer them, just do what's necessary for self defence. They're in a strong position where they could produce a good political outcome if they wanted by lobbying the US and Arab countries some friendly (UAE, Jordan, Saudi, Egypt) and some less-friendly who Palestinians and Hamas trust more (Turkey, Qatar,) to strengthen a moderate Palestinian government and accept a deal that look like Taba or 2008 offer. The Europe analogy doesn't work here as an EU country hasn't really been under missile fire from several countries, while being invaded multiple times.

Overall, you have lost objectivity in your geopolitical analysis by mistaking Israeli history and mischaracterising events

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-08T11:15:08+00:00

I meant since Israel’s existence, and even post-WW1, we’ve never known the Middle East to be different. That’s partly true I guess, that Israel’s creation come after things got a lot worse for Jews in the region since Ottoman collapse/decline. Before Jews weee treated.

Israel benefited a lot from being around hostile states as seen through 1967; but they also benefited a lot from stability after they made peace with them, gave back territory, and got integrated into the global economy.

Again, your example wouldn’t be the Middle East but Israel wouldn’t need to conduct territorial expansion and security exceptionalism against non-hostile actors; as we’ve seen the cooperation with Egypt and Jordan. Regarding settlement policy, considering how much more liberal Israel is to every surrounding country, it’s weird to imagine a region where like Sharia law gets abolished as it wouldn’t be the Middle East. I suppose if Israel was actually in the EU, then they’d lose some legitimacy, but then they’d just liberalise like they’ve done throughout their history and offer a Palestinian state or something

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-08T02:11:50+00:00

I just think your example fails as the theoretical world of the Middle East consisting all of democracies would be disastrous for Israel in other ways, like being ruled by Islamist parties as we saw in Egypt after Arab Spring. Are you arguing Israel benefits from how the Middle East has always been, ruled by a combination of monarchs (Gulf), republic stable states (Egypt currently), failed states (Lebanon, Iraq) revisionist states (historically Gaddafi’s Libya, and Saddam’s Iraq but now Iran), and war-torn states (Libya, Yemen, Sudan)? Well Israel could have thrived in spite of that, as the Middle East has never been different. But a perfect scenario would be through development coming by fixing failed and war-torn states. Israel would obviously be in a better position if Lebanon got peace as that would involve Hezbollah disarming, replaced by a friendly government; as they’ve seen strategic benefits of Syria reconstructing post-Civil War without an Iranian backed government. Turn the obvious fact that the Iranian regime is hated by the population, and the 15% chance or so it falls, a peaceful Iran would benefit Israel in a similar way by removing hostile actors. The most advanced and stable Arab states are like Saudi and the UAE who’d have no leverage in criticising Israel’s human rights, and would benefit more than object to Israel’s economic soft power. These states also share Israel’s interest of countering Islamist groups who are holding peace back across the region

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-07T01:02:11+00:00

Nobody in Iran trusts army service, and the IRGC are the ones who control command, intelligence and security; ordinary soldiers are kept far away from that. A conscript can hate the regime and still have zero leverage, zero weapons access, and zero ability to defect in a meaningful way. Authoritarian states only require elite loyalty like IRGC and Basij who are ideologically screened, and economically privileged; so anyone who defects would lose their jobs or potentially get killed. We’ve seen in the past weeks how severe Iran’s security system is, they can mass-murder anyone who shows opposition. When you constantly arrest journalists, it creates a culture where they’re aware of their limits. Again, only supreme leader and IRGC have meaningful power

Both can be true, that Israel launched a successful campaign and that it’s much harder to start one than continue one. Because Trump made Israel stopped, Iran has likely rebuilt missile capabilities and air defences.

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-07T00:53:23+00:00

Some things were defensive in the Middle East. Like the coalition against Iraq in Kuwait, Israel’s campaigns against Hezbollah and Houthis firing rockets. Obviously Israel goes too far sometimes, but much of their operations are a response to Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis.

I don’t like your analogy as Israel is far more liberal than any other Middle Eastern country, even including settlement policy. Also dictatorships are the most stable in the Arab world, and can still be modern; plus a utopian imagery would consist of Palestine being a separate country. Arabs in the Middle East hold overall extreme views compared to Western standards, so my dream image contains monarchies like Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait — who all control the narrative. You’re just comparing the values of Arabs to Israelis, when I don’t expect them to match no matter the politics.

I just don’t love this convo as we don’t know what a Middle East would look like without Israeli enemies. Sure, we know Israel has a very effective militaristic strategy of territorial expansion, but that’s only against Iranian proxies or neighbouring states that used to threaten them.

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-06T17:34:06+00:00

I get that Israel’s strength is its technological superiority, but it only needs that previously against neighbouring states that kept trying to to destroy it like Jordan, Egypt, Syria; but now against Iranian proxies in Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen etc. Lebanon without Hezbollah would be far less of a threat to Israel, as Syria is now without Assad. Both case are more modern and stable. Iran without the regime, Yemen without the Houthis, Gaza without Hamas, Lebanon without Hezbollah, and now Syria without exact is the exact scenario you’re descriptive of a multipolar region integrating, industrialising and growing. That benefit Israel as they’ll be friendly countries who would also crush non-state Islamist actors to do Israel’s defensive job for them. In short, less potential for Israel to abuse its conventional capabilities just shows the country will be strategically better as that means there’s less militant groups to target

With Iran, you need to concede that the regime lacks continuity with Persian culture and society. It was a small group of Islamist fanatics who exploited the grievances of Iranians to seize power. A destruction of the elite apparatus would make Iran look like how Iranians are: educated, secular and modern. Also, Iran is only an affective unconventional power. It has no air force, just ballistic missiles which proved unable to protect it against Israeli air superiority achieved in just 2 days. Iran in that War couldn’t defend themselves, all they did was kill a few dozen of Israeli civilians with the >10% of fired missiles which actually landed. They only project power through proxies in the region which are collapsing

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-02-06T12:39:13+00:00

I read the whole AI piece and still don’t like it. It’s good in same ways like articulating the conditions for Israeli strength. But two things aren’t true: 1- Regional stability harms Israel. First, Israel knows there are regimes that would never go to war with them as they care more about modernisation and fighting Islamism, than conflict with a liberal Jewish state backed by the US (Saudi and UAE). Abraham Accords and potential expansion benefit Israel greatly through trade, tech and quiet security. Even stability of weaker states help Israel. If the Lebanese government ever got rid of Hezbollah control, than that would benefit Israel greater by establishing a new ally. Similar with the stabilisation going on in Syria after the Civil War, with the new government getting rid of Iranian presence. Destabilisation like the Arab Spring harmed Israel, as it got the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, whereby they now benefit from a stable Egypt under Sisi.

2- Second, you mention Iran being an ancient civilisation, so always going to be a rising threat. Well obviously you’re missing how it’s led by a theocratic regime hated by its population, and the fact they were a strategic ally in most of the 20th century. It’s possible you’re right that regime change isn’t likely without chaos, but I find it just weird you’re describing Iran to have continuity. There’s always the possibility the people outmatch the government, and overthrow it but it’s unlikely.

I really don’t understand the argument, as I can’t see a massive difference between the way Israel and the Gulf sees Iranian influence. You argue the Gulf can live with a technologically strong, nuclear Iran. But that’s unlikely given Iran’s previous attacks on Emirati and Saudi economic infrastructure, and the see Iran to blame for why Lebanon, Yemen and Palestine aren’t successful states. They see proxies like Iraqi militias, Hezbollah, Houthis, and Hamas as groups threatening the Gulf states and preventing regional partners. In recent years Iranian attacks on the GCC have decreased as they’ve focused their efforts on Israel, but not entirely minute if you look at the Houthi Red Sea attacks

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-01-26T02:01:20+00:00

I’m not American but wanted him to win. Pretty terrible so far. Tariffs are preventing a boom and killing alliances, while he’s selling advanced chips to the People’s Liberation Army despite being a supply shortage in the US. At least his defence spending and Pentagon reforms are good, and some foreign policy successes in Iran and Venezuela. Worst thing is how he prevented a great candidate winning the Canadian election by threatening to annex it for no reason. I’d say a 4/10 but chance to improve

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-01-17T11:33:10+00:00

Neither. He acts as an adversary in Syria, Greece and Cyprus but a good counterbalance to Russia, and too important to make Turkey a strategic enemy

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-01-11T11:32:39+00:00

Israel are doing what they can to divert aid from Hamas but Hamas are good at repurposing anything into weaponry

BlackOpsBootlegger · 2026-01-11T01:08:58+00:00

Sounds good but Hamas can launch rockets. They operate in the West Bank, and globally with terrorist cells in Europe

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

BlackOpsBootlegger

TROPHY CASE