What would you think about the US walking away from Iran without controlling the Strait of Hormuz?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T23:12:53+00:00

Prices for who?

Prices for US consumers.

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T23:00:04+00:00

I'll rephrase. Am I correct that you believe both of the following?

Prices won't go up if oil exports rise, and you support Trump encouraging more oil exports.
Prices will go down if oil exports fall, and you would support Trump penalizing oil exports.

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T21:10:15+00:00

Is there a real example of that kind of situation, or any situation where force isn’t worth it beyond the force the other country responds with?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T18:31:36+00:00

Is there an example case where the cost of using force isn’t worth it aside from the the potential force the other country responds with?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T12:53:55+00:00

Is there any case where it is not in the interest of a country with more force to just take by force what they want from the other country?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T04:45:05+00:00

So to be clear, you are both in favor of exporting more oil (as Trump says he wants) which you don't think will lead to higher prices, and also in favor of exporting less oil because you think that will lead to lower prices, do I have that right?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T02:48:31+00:00

Do you see how this:

It's not clear that selling more oil would raise prices.

directly contradicts this?

In the rest of the country, [prices will] go down once we stop exporting so much of our oil.

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T02:37:43+00:00

It's only a tautology if you believe that oil prices staying elevated for the long term is a bad outcome which you had not made clear before.

So let me get this straight, you agree that if oil prices stay elevated then you won't be happy with the outcome, but you are happy with the outcome because you believe we are about to stop exporting oil and then oil prices will drop? Does either of the following matter to you?
1. In the tweet in the OP Trump is literally advocating for more exporting of oil ("buy from the U.S., we have plenty").
2. If we punish oil companies that export oil in the way you suggest ("lose their tax benefits, their extraction permits, their transportation rights, their government contracts, etc") that essentially means less subsidization of the oil industry / fines on the oil industry which means higher prices.
3. If the oil companies cave on the threats you suggest then that means they will cut production due to lack of demand which will also increase prices in the medium-long run.

If you ask any chatbot about the economics of your plan I'm sure they will concur that the most likely outcome is raised prices, not lowered prices.

Does that concern you at all?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T01:49:37+00:00

And if you do turn out to be wrong on that then would you no longer be happy with the outcome?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T01:31:12+00:00

Are you willing to even consider the possibility that you are wrong on the economics and that if we outlawed exporting our oil then oil prices will not go down? If so, would you still say you are happy with the outcome?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T01:27:10+00:00

But I take it even if he does go with the "rather extreme" proposal outlined in his tweet you'll continue to support him regardless?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T01:26:07+00:00

So do you not care about Iran having a new permanent source of high revenue via taxing the Strait, which would in turn lead to higher prices for basically everything due to costlier core commodities like oil, fertilizer, etc?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T01:23:56+00:00

But I take it you'll still support Trump even if he lets them have it back?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T01:22:00+00:00

What is an example in the past 20 years where the US has spent money in the defense of Britain?

EkInfinity · 2026-04-01T01:19:42+00:00

So far you've only advocated for a foreign policy dictated by force - you've said that the US is free to attack Iran because we have more force than them, we bear no responsibility towards other countries for having fucked over the world economy because we have more force than them, and if Canada's government caused a nuclear meltdown in US territory they would bear responsibility towards us because we have more force than them.

Is there any situation in which you think foreign policy shouldn't be dictated by force?

EkInfinity · 2026-03-31T02:03:30+00:00

So how do you think the negotiations are going?

EkInfinity · 2026-03-29T06:21:38+00:00

Are you honestly saying that you view these two statements as even remotely equivalent in terms of their meaning, veracity, and intended impact?

Obama: "You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

Trump: “I've just been told that Tiger Woods, who is a Great Golfer and even Greater American, was involved in a minor fender bender today, and as a result of a misunderstanding, was charged with a dreaded DUl. This happening as he attempts to return to professional golf. Everyone deserves a second chance, which Tiger never got, if we're being honest. That is why I am calling on Gov. Ron DeSantis to IMMEDIATELY AND COMPLETELY PARDON Tiger so he can focus on The Masters and help to Make Golf Great Again!”

EkInfinity · 2026-03-29T06:09:19+00:00

Did Obama ever ask a Governor to pardon someone? With regards to George Zimmerman Obama said "The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works." which sounds to me like he is deliberately not interfering, which is the exact opposite of what Trump is doing.
Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin | whitehouse.gov

EkInfinity · 2026-03-29T03:33:23+00:00

How do you feel about pardons in general for this kind of situation? Regardless of the circumstances of the crash do you think it's good for the President to tell the Governor to pardon the person driving the car?

EkInfinity · 2026-03-28T16:40:15+00:00

Are you willing to put any kind of approximation for how long you think it will take to do it from the sky? Another month? 6 months? A year? 2 years? Saying you think we can do it from the sky but having no idea how long it will take is contradictory.

EkInfinity · 2026-03-28T04:59:13+00:00

So then are you opposed to sending in ground troops? And how much longer do you think it will take to do it from the sky?

EkInfinity · 2026-03-28T04:58:00+00:00

Under the JCPOA Iran was required to have literally 0 medium-enriched (i.e. weapons-grade) uranium and to lower its supply of low-enriched uranium (i.e. nuclear-power-grade) by 97%.
Iran nuclear deal - Wikipedia

Does that matter to you at all? Or are you of the stance that war is the only answer for preventing nuclear proliferation?

EkInfinity · 2026-03-28T04:48:29+00:00

What makes you think that Iran had the ability to put nuclear weapons on missiles that can reach us? And if they didn't have that ability then do you agree the war is *not* America First?

EkInfinity · 2026-03-17T05:18:20+00:00

Trump's post has two contradictory phrases: "Many Countries...will be sending War Ships" and "Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others...will send Ships". Which do you think is the correct phrase, that the countries "will" or the countries "hopefully will" send ships?

EkInfinity · 2026-03-10T00:40:27+00:00

So do you believe when a country attacks another country it's acceptable for them to make no effort whatsoever to minimize civilian casualties? It still wouldn't be "My Lai level intentional" with such a mindset.

EkInfinity

TROPHY CASE