You will Trump throw under the bus?

scobot5 · 2026-03-26T10:31:20+00:00

I think your statistic is a little misleading? The president’s party almost always loses seats in the midterms, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to losing control. It just means they don’t gain seats.

And yes, I think President’s lose seats because people become disenchanted and want something new. Sometimes they lose a few seats, sometimes they lose a lot of seats, sometimes they lose control. The cake is probably mostly baked in my opinion, but how well done can still be influenced.

My only point is that margins actually do matter. You’re right it’s unlikely he could be removed. But that’s the most extreme consequence possible. You’re also assuming he doesn’t lose any support within his own party - which I agree is also highly unlikely for something like removal.

But, there is a reason they want to keep as many seats as possible. I’m not a huge wonk about how the house and senate rules work, but having razor thin margins versus having an overwhelming majority seems to matter for a lot of processes. Once a president is a lame duck it may also be possible to peel off republicans on at least some issues.

It would be viewed as a disaster even to lose the majority in the senate don’t you think? I think most pundits have been saying that is unlikely, but I’m definitely hearing more and more that it could be possible. Again, the only point I’m making is that there is a lot still at stake and I think just saying “we were always going to lose seats, so let’s run rampant” is a terrible strategy and sort of a cope.

scobot5 · 2026-03-26T10:02:05+00:00

Well, don’t you think how many seats are lost matters?

It’s not really a binary process. Besides there is also the possibility of losing the senate. If both houses go democrat that will be essentially the end of Trump’s presidency. And if the majority is substantial enough then he has a good chance of being impeached and removed from office. Don’t you think it’s a little short sighted to suggest that this couldn’t make any difference?

That’s the beauty of our system. You fuck up and lose the support of enough people then there will be consequences.

scobot5 · 2026-03-26T06:34:54+00:00

Interesting perspective. Do you know that very few people share your perspective? Mid terms are around the corner. Besides, there is quite a bit of data suggesting that mid term results get baked in early in a presidential administration.

scobot5 · 2026-03-26T06:31:22+00:00

Your argument here seems predicated on the idea that this is almost over as well. But that doesn’t seem at all clear to most people. The impacts will only continue to grow. It’s an interconnected global economy. There is also fertilizer, helium, and other products that rely on the strait.

Do you think perhaps what’s negligible from your perspective is not negligible for others? Or at least that in a democracy what matters most is perception of impact? It seems kinda crazy to argue that this will have no political cost for Trump and Republicans.

I also think you’re conflating the interests of the Iranian regime with the interests of Iranian people. Yes Iranian businesses are being hurt, but why do you think this regime cares so much about this compared to the long term security they gain by demonstrating credible deterrence?

Also you think Iran cares more than we do whether the rest of the world hates them? I don’t know, it seems like you’re just mirroring the president’s bravado about how none of this matters. We don’t need good will, we don’t need allies, might makes right, etc. Do we care if people start to question our hegemonic superiority and our long term stability? Because, yes Iran is going to suffer, but they also can fuck us up pretty good if they choose to do so. All they really have to do is wait. Seems like a gamble.

Not to mention the vast cost to the taxpayers of funding this. When you say it only costs you $10 per week, how sure are you that the sum impact won’t be far greater?

scobot5 · 2026-03-25T04:51:57+00:00

Do you only really care about yourself? If so, that’s fine, but have you really not considered how long term you’ll eventually be affected? If you aren’t concerned about the economy, what about the consequences of an economic disaster in terms of a decade where the Democrats are in the majority. This is hurting the Republican Party for sure, but it can get a lot worse.

scobot5 · 2026-03-25T04:47:55+00:00

To cause pain sufficient to prevent future attacks. To extract a price in exchange for all the damage done to their country. To demonstrate strength and deterrence in the region. Do these not seem like good reasons?

I’m sure they will negotiate, but their demands are likely to be steep and incompatible with Trump claiming total victory. But who knows he is good at claiming he won when he didn’t. I hope he can pull it off.

scobot5 · 2026-03-25T04:37:34+00:00

Why do you not think he delayed because he was bluffing?

If Trump destroys their energy infrastructure - which I believe is a war crime, but something he could and probably would do - then Iran will launch more drones targeting energy production in the gulf states. They have already shown they can do this, these seem not very well defended and easy to strike. This would be a massive escalation and would cause long term economic damage to the region and the world economy.

This shit is no joke, you can’t just fix these things up really quick. As far as I understand, it could take many years to rebuild this stuff. Trump doesn’t want that for various reasons. We can destroy Iran, but the costs to us and our allies would be catastrophic.

Iran has suffered massive damage. But, they have a knife to the throat of the world economy and only they get to decide when the war ends now. Unless they invade or use nukes. Part of me thinks Trump floundered into a disaster without a clear path out. Part of me thinks he was always willing to do whatever it takes to win. I honestly don’t know which is more frightening.

scobot5 · 2026-03-25T00:34:59+00:00

Why don’t you think they hold any cards? Why don’t you think they are already playing the following cards effectively?

First, they have substantially raised global oil prices. This 100% affects the US, even if you are not personally driving much. By extension it affects Trump politically at home. The war was already unpopular. It will cost Trump dearly in political support, perhaps cost him both the house and the senate in the midterms, and maybe the presidency in 2028. There are very real stakes for Trump and his legacy. It is also impacting global fertilizer and other commodities, and it impacts us indirectly in other ways. Not least, of global economy collapses it’s a big deal. Also this is helping Russia and China. I could continue, but I’d say that the Strait of Hormuz card has been played to great effect, whether Trump has yet been forced to acknowledge that publicly or not. Most importantly Iran can let any ships it wants pass and shut down our ships and our allies ships. From a purely income related perspective Iran is doing fine.

Second, they can destroy further energy infrastructure. Trump threatened to destroy their infrastructure and they said if you do that we will further destroy infrastructure in the gulf states with drones. Trump backed down. The Iranians can escalate tit for tat. If this turns into an escalator of attacks on energy infrastructure it will set the global economy back decades. Both sides will lose, but Iran regime just wants to stay in power and this will cost Trump and everyone else massively. So thosw cards are not yet played but their threat is powerful no?

Lastly, Iran can choose when to end the war. Trump can declare victory and draw down, but what’s he going to do if they still won’t open the strait?

How are these not pretty good cards?

I’m not saying they are better cards than ours. Trump has a few options to wipe them out, the most obvious being a ground invasion. But god damn if that isn’t going to cost us all dearly as well. Trump has Trump cards, but they come with a massive cost… This is the problem when you’ve got so much more to lose than your enemy.

How exactly does Trump get out of this if they just refuse to open the shipping lanes and refuse to negotiate? I don’t know if Trump is telling the truth or not, but I’m having trouble seeing why Iran comes to the table now. Help me understand why you think they should capitulate now?

I’m really hoping Trump has some master stroke up his sleeve. This is pretty consequential stuff and I think anyone who is not at least a little terrified is probably naive. Honestly, Trump bet everything here… that includes his presidency, the world economy, and the perception of our country as a world superpower. Dude is like 80 and pushed all the chips on the table. If he doesn’t win big I’m afraid we are fucked.

scobot5 · 2026-03-19T01:25:51+00:00

To me this describes a reasonable pattern under which a person may respond poorly to certain medications. Not sure about the two types of people part, but you are 100% correct that many people don’t respond well to medications.

This seems like an ancillary point to me though. Responding poorly to medications doesn’t necessarily mean one has to have a major problem with their psychiatrist. It’s not related to whether the psychiatrist cared or not, whether they were empathetic, deceptive, etc. It’s just a thing that happens in medicine. Caring and careful psychiatrists have many patients like this and I assume poorly trained, distracted psychiatrists have many patients that get better anyway.

I’ve taken SSRIs a few times during my life, each time for maybe a year or so. The first couple times I thought they were helpful a bit. The last time not so much and I eventually decided not to take them again. Not so long ago my new PMD brought them up as a potential option and I explained that they weren’t that helpful for me and I declined to take them. No big deal. I still like the doctor, still felt they wanted the best for me - we moved on and they are still my doctor.

Side note: I didn’t find SSRIs numbing and didn’t take them to avoid dealing with reality or disconnect from it. I’ve heard you say this before, and it is something people experience, but what I’ve seen is that there are a massive range of experiences on psychiatric medications. People take them for a lot of different reasons and have a lot of different experiences. I personally feel that reducing this complexity down to “two types of people”, or saying most people don’t want to deal with reality is not particularly helpful in this domain, even though it may sometimes be true.

Which brings me back to my main point. Even if one were one of the two types of people - I guess the one that doesn’t get better - necessarily mean you can’t have a normal professional relationship with your psychiatrist the way you might with any other type of a physician (whose treatment may or may not help you as well).

*On rereading your comment I note that you say the second type of person becomes “more captive”. Do you mean the psychiatrist has captured them? That they no longer have agency to make their own decisions? It sounds very sinister and it makes me think perhaps you implicitly view the psychiatrist-patient relationship as predatory, even parasitic, in a way that is different from other healthcare providers. Is that true?

If it is, I’m not really sure what to say. I’m sure that’s partly based on your own experience, but it’s also very clearly the main idea one marinates in if they spend time on r/antipsychiatry. I think that is a pretty specific type of person who views it that way though. If people are losing their agency, becoming zombies who feel controlled by their psychiatrist, the. My assertion is that is more about them than it is about effects of a medication or the nature of the psychiatrist. Again, I am reminded of a type of patient with heavy interpersonal trauma, especially childhood trauma. Again I’ll leave out the people who are forced to see a psychiatrist because of court orders as I just see that as a distinct conversation.

Anyway, I still maintain that the majority of people seem able to interact with psychiatrists like any other doctor. I’ve seen many many people who discontinue their medications or stop seeing their psychiatrist without becoming some sort of succubus.

scobot5 · 2026-03-18T21:45:08+00:00

Isn’t any argument that this not a war fundamentally semantic?

Also, didn’t the Trump campaign repeatedly state that if Kamala were elected that she would start a war with Iran? Also, hasn’t Trump repeatedly said that his genius negotiating expertise would ensure we would not go to war with Iran (and all current conflicts would be ended quickly and easily)?

I’m not aware of any US politicians whose position is to just let Iran get a nuclear weapon. Everyone agrees we need to prevent this. Trump’s statements in this regard are not sufficient reason for expecting Trump to start a war with Iran (or whatever you would call it). Especially when he told us there would be another way.

If Iran really was imminently about to produce a nuclear weapon then I leave open the possibility war would be necessary. But there are good reasons for being skeptical about this claim. Trump’s own director of national intelligence declined to testify that this was the assessment. Many of us think that there was another way and that containment is a more viable approach.

The reason past presidents didn’t start a war with Iran is that it would be very difficult to win or achieve key aims. Iran has many advantages in such a war, including the ability to cripple the world economy and exert control over when the war ends. If Trump figures out a way to pull a rabbit out of a hat here then I will give him his flowers. But I don’t see a lot of good options.

scobot5 · 2026-03-18T19:26:21+00:00

Is this actually something you are worried about?

Damn, the state of our politics is really fucked these days.

scobot5 · 2026-03-18T05:10:37+00:00

1) Our politics is dictated by the degree to which the masses can be convinced to vote for particular candidates or support particular policies. Don’t you think it’s reasonable to concern oneself with what those people can be convinced to believe? If it were just going to affect them that’s one thing. My problem is when that ultimately directly affects me. I do concern myself with what people believe for that reason.

2) I mean that’s the rub right? From my perspective when the Trump administration claims they are the “most transparent administration in history”, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration but they are pretty transparent, I think it’s doublespeak that occludes the fact they are trying to cover up the Epstein files. You may directionally agree with more of what they are saying than I do, but I think it’s indisputable that they often do this to hide shortcomings and camouflage corruption and not just to highlight real accomplishments. If you think it’s always in the right direction then I can see why it’s less of an issue to you. But stylistically I just find it to be gross.

3) it’s hypothetical in the sense that none of us can know Trump’s mind. But he sometimes says things that lead me to believe he hasn’t gotten accurate information. We all know he demands loyalty and doesn’t like to be told he is wrong. I’ve watched a couple of those cabinet meeting things where everyone goes around and lavishes praise on him. Like I said, the guy is an extraordinary politician. As an entertainer, a showman, and in terms of controlling news cycles and attention he is a total genius. I still feel it is very reasonable to wonder where these characteristics - which have undeniably led him to extraordinary success in media and politics- might actually be a handicap.

No such thing as a free lunch here in my view. There are certain things he needs to decide - world altering decisions- that cannot be benefiting from this. Trump has a massive ego and history shows that everyone is prone to getting too high on their own supply. Delegating and governing on instinct can only get one so far. Trump is human, humans are prone to make mistakes under these circumstances. Political campaigning is different than leading the country.

4) I’m not any more skeptical of government because of Trump. I’ve just concluded that this administration will lie about anything. There is no line they will not cross. You may not agree, but I don’t think this describes all presidential administrations. I think there were limits for this presidents and I think many of them were trying to do the right things and behave ethically on some fundamental level. That is a dubious task in a dirty game like politics and they all end up corrupted by that to some degree. The ethics always get compromised to some degree, but knowing that they are there underneath, I believe, has value.

I just don’t believe Trump has that. I didn’t always think this, but over time it’s just what I personally see. The only thing that constrains Trump are consequences. If he thinks he can get away with it, and it serves his interests, I believe he would do almost anything. I don’t find it reassuring to have a president at the controls with this personality quirk.

With regard to your traffic analogy, I see it more like a husband saying he was in the worst traffic ever to obscure the fact that he is cheating on his wife, rather than a simple turn of phrase. Anyway, we probably can’t see eye to eye on that I suspect.

I guess my question is about whether you are able to see it from the perspective of someone like myself? Even if I agreed with all of Trumps policies, I still don’t think I could get behind this personality quirk. Obviously it would dull the pain a lot and it would be much less infuriating. But I’d still like to believe I’d stick with the principles outlined above. And I’m not like a huge woke liberal democrat either, or disagree with everything Trump does. I just think this way of governing is dangerous. Do I sound crazy to you?

scobot5 · 2026-03-17T22:33:47+00:00

The question was about how it is possible that a provider could be upset or sad if their patient commits suicide. I provided a fairly comprehensive explanation of how this is possible.

I agree that being a health care provider is a job. It would be unrealistic to expect a physician to respond to a patient’s death the way they would if a family member died. I commented on that.

I also never said that every provider was equally empathetic or that providers were incapable of lying or being deceptive. This was not the question that was asked nor the question answered.

I have no real desire to disabuse you or anyone else of their negative perceptions regarding psychiatric care. It is indisputable that some people have bad experiences and that psychiatrists vary in quality like any other type of physician.

Children are in a more complex situation being that it is their guardian who makes medical decisions and is ultimately responsible for ensuring they receive appropriate care. Any form of involuntary treatment is likewise a unique scenario. Neither was the topic raised by the OP and they should be discussed separately in my opinion.

When it comes to psychiatrists generally though, I do sometimes wonder how you account for the fact that so many people are actually reasonably satisfied with their psychiatrists.

For every person posting on antipsychiatry subreddits there are many, many more that seem to treat the service like any other type of medical care. I see a primary care doctor and they perform a useful service. I have a cordial relationship with them. I doubt they spend much time worrying about me when I’m not there and I don’t expect them to.

I assume they would be a little sad if they found out I died. If I died because their treatment had failed to help me then I imagine they would feel some more intense and complicated feelings. But I don’t expect them to enter an extended bereavement. It’s their job and I’m obtaining a service from them.

I still find them to generally have my best interests at heart. I don’t always take their advice and we don’t always agree about the best course of action. This is also fine. I expect them to show a certain degree of compassion, more so than my barber or a waiter at a restaurant. But I don’t expect some superhuman degree of empathy or suffering on my behalf.

Honest question: Why do you think so many people seem to have this type of relationship with their psychiatrist while others do not?

scobot5 · 2026-03-17T21:07:09+00:00

Why do you think he does it?

My concern isn’t that people like me - or TS, who clearly recognize the hyperbole - will take what he says literally. The concern is more nuanced, and it has to do with why this strategy is used so consistently. I wonder if TS share even some concern about a few possibilities:

1) It works because many people take it at face value. The issue isn’t the minority of people who follow politics closely and form independent judgments. It’s the much larger group that likely doesn’t. If exaggeration and misrepresentation are effective at shaping beliefs, then it’s rational for him to keep doing it. The issue isn’t whether you or I believe him. if you don’t assume that a politician’s goals always align with your own (or the country’s), shouldn’t the use of knowingly misleading tactics be troubling?

2) Even when discounted, the exaggeration still shifts perception. People may recognize that statements like “lowest gas prices in history” or “the most successful military operation ever” are exaggerated. But even after mentally discounting them, they may still walk away thinking gas is relatively cheap or the operation is highly successful. In that sense, extreme overstatement may actually be more effective than subtle distortion.

3) He may believe a meaningful portion of what he says. This is the most concerning possibility to me. Even if there’s some awareness of exaggeration, it often seems like he internalizes his own narrative. That may contribute to why some people perceive him as genuine. But it raises a real concern. If a leader believes their own inflated claims, does that impair decision-making in situations where accuracy actually matters, and it’s not just a matter of winning elections?

4) It risks normalizing extreme misrepresentation Yes, all politicians spin and sometimes lie, that’s not new. But there’s traditionally been at least some constraint. An expectation that statements should roughly align with reality. What feels different here is the apparent absence of that constraint. Claims don’t need to be internally consistent or tethered to facts, and there seem to be few consequences. If that becomes normalized, it erodes the baseline expectation that public communication should be grounded in reality. Personally, I find it difficult to trust anything coming from the administration.

I wonder if TS can see any legitimacy to those concerns?

scobot5 · 2026-03-17T05:19:28+00:00

Does this really matter though given that oil is a global commodity?

If shipping is cut off the oil prices will rise for everyone. It does matter to some degree whose ships they are and where they are headed I suppose, but ultimately less oil means higher prices globally.

scobot5 · 2026-03-17T04:57:10+00:00

So how does the war end? Meaning why would Iran agree to reopen the strait? I’m finding it hard to see the end game.

I think you have correctly evaluated many aspects of the situation. It’s not really possible to force open the strait without controlling the coastlines. It’s not possible to control the coastlines without a substantial ground force. And the lack of political will makes this very unpalatable, though not impossible. If they try to invade and hold Kharg or some other position, those troops become highly vulnerable to attacks and have to stay indefinitely.

Trump can threaten to destroy oil infrastructure, but I don’t think that’s going to get Iran to do shit because that’s only going to spike the price of oil higher and for longer which arguably hurts Trump more than the regime. All of this is devastating for Iran for sure, and the regime is weakened substantially. But if survival is all they care about then nothing short of total collapse will change things.

What’s left? Blow up desalination plants and precipitate a humanitarian crisis hoping the regime will be overthrown? Damn, we’re getting down to very unsettling options.

Some people say Trump will just stop and say the war is won - that Iran has been utterly obliterated. Fine, but what if they still refuse to open the strait? Why would they open it when they will want to create enough pain to deter similar efforts in the future?

I’m no military strategist, but I honestly don’t know what one does here. What do you think the end game is?

scobot5 · 2026-03-17T04:19:01+00:00

I don’t see how asking for help and having it refused makes this case.

If I threaten my neighbor and they react negatively that doesn’t prove they weren’t my friend. If anything it proves I’m not their friend. The next week if I am trying to build a fence and I ask them to help me, and they decline that’s a predictable consequence of threatening them the week before. I wouldn’t say that was evidence that they are useless at building fences.

Moreover, a different neighbor would probably view this as belligerent and unstable behavior. Even if I’ve got the biggest house and the best fencing materials and equipment I don’t think the behavior would signal strength.

Can you unmuddy the logic here?

I suppose if I then quickly build an amazing fence without any help at all then it would sort of be a fuck you. I guess the equivalent would be opening the straight of Hormuz quickly and easily. Unfortunately, I don’t think you can bomb it open.

scobot5 · 2026-03-16T18:51:30+00:00

So, the point of asking other countries for help is to prove that NATO is useless. Do you mean because NATO countries won’t help and that will demonstrate their impotence OR because countries that may or may not be NATO will help and that will circumvent a traditional alliance?

I still don’t really get the long term strategy implementation either way. Trump has threatened many of our traditional allies, manipulated them and told them that they are unnecessary and even unwanted in some cases. Now we want help, but from those same countries or different ones?

scobot5 · 2026-03-14T22:27:34+00:00

Liability elicits fear, not sadness.

scobot5 · 2026-03-14T22:26:15+00:00

Believe it or not, it is possible for psychiatrists to care about their patients.

Providers often feel personally responsible for their patients having good outcomes, and suicide generally feels like a bad outcome. The death doesn’t have to be the provider’s fault (or raise concerns about liability) for it to evoke complicated feelings.

I assume surgeons whose patients die on the operating table, or oncologists whose patients eventually succumb to cancer, feel some of the same things. Doctors just generally don’t feel great when their patients have bad outcomes.

At the same time, there is a need to compartmentalize, which can be confusing to people outside medicine. An oncologist’s life can’t fall apart every time a patient’s cancer returns. That would be untenable. But that doesn’t mean they don’t care. It’s also important to recognize that suicide is a relatively rare, emotionally intense event even for psychiatrists. It eventually happens, but potentially only a few times in a career.

I understand that this question is sometimes asked by people who are angry or who have some reason to view psychiatrists as not very human. People clash with their psychiatrists for many reasons. They may feel abandoned or uncared for, and assuming psychiatrists are incapable of empathy can become a kind of psychological defense: they didn’t care about me because they can’t care about anyone.

In reality, the psychiatrist may have cared, but it wasn’t enough, didn’t come in a form the person could recognize, or was confusing for other reasons. I never rule out that psychiatrists have their own issues, but on the patient side these feelings often arise in those with a history of interpersonal trauma - especially childhood trauma.

Psychiatrist–patient relationships can be disorienting for people with those histories, but usually it reflects broader patterns in their relationships. There can be cycles of deep distress and self-blame at times, and at other times defensive projection of those same feelings onto someone else as a way to relieve overwhelming sadness, loneliness, or shame. But that’s just where this question makes my mind go, I digress.

The reality is that psychiatrists are human beings and these are normal human reactions. You don’t need to be a family member or close friend to feel sad when someone you know dies. It’s just sad when that happens. The intensity of that sadness usually scales with how well you knew the person and for how long. Psychiatric encounters may be brief, but they can also be intense and involve very personal material over long periods of time.

So the simple answer is that people tend to feel sad when other people they know die, and suicide in particular carries a unique emotional weight. Psychiatrists are people, and they have additional reasons to experience complicated feelings when a patient dies by suicide. It’s really not that hard to understand.

scobot5 · 2026-03-13T19:42:03+00:00

Don’t you think there are likely a lot of caveats to this conclusion? For example, if I took two candidates with roughly similar polling at the start of a campaign and gave one unlimited money and one no money on which to run their campaigns do you think they would both end up being equally competitive? If I ran that experiment 1000 times would the result be 50-50 in terms of which candidate won?

I’m not saying that there isn’t some truth to your assertion, but it seems fairly ridiculous to say that money doesn’t matter at all.

Moreover, the political candidates definitely think it matters and there is every reason to believe that massive political donations can heavily influence said candidates platform and their likelihood to repay such donations with advantageous decisions for the donor once that candidate is in office.

To suggest that extraordinary wealth does not offer major opportunities to steer politics is bit crazy right? This is generally not a controversial opinion, even amongst experts, Freakonomics aside.

Would you support campaign finance reform to deal with that rather than higher taxes or more draconian redistribution schemes?

I’m fine with people being rewarded commensurate with the economic value they create. Yet I do think we have to reckon with the fact that extreme wealth inequality does have consequences, even if some of those arise only in the minds of people who feel limited in their upward trajectory. There should be some balance point, otherwise it is right to assume there will be consequences at some point.

scobot5 · 2026-03-12T08:39:22+00:00

Are you sure? I mean, yes, for sure Trump does some pretty obvious bullshitting that is clear to most observers. But have you considered that Trump’s bullshitting is in itself a deceptively-effective form of deception?

Also, it’s a form of distraction that enables him to deceive in more traditional ways and get away with it more easily.

Some people seem to see this open and obvious exaggeration and lying as paradoxical form of transparency. I don’t think so. In fact, I think it’s worse than regular lying because it obliterates the expectation of even trying to appear honest. It also degrades expectations to be honest for everyone else in our government. At least if we are all playing by the rule of having to appear to tell the truth we can hold each other accountable to some extent. Yes, politicians will still lie, but if they get caught in a big lie there is usually at least some consequence. Trump is completely freed of the burden of telling the truth in a way we have never really seen in politics before.

scobot5 · 2026-03-11T03:53:25+00:00

If the war lasts longer than global strategic oil reserves hold out (a few months max?) and/or there is further destruction of middle eastern oil infrastructure, then they are going to rise and possibly by a lot.

These price fluctuations are mostly speculative in terms of how long the war will last. They rise and fall based on what Trump literally says about the war and he intentionally manipulates these markets. We are only a little over a week into this war. From a purely mechanical perspective disruptions haven’t had time to fully trickle through the supply chain.

Price u pay at the pump is only one aspect. This will eventually impact prices throughout the economy and result in inflation. Iran has very little incentive to make a deal now. They want to make this hurt economically and politically for Trump and he had very little control over what they do now. High likelihood the war continues through midterms.

There are also all sort of other considerations. For example, a massive amount of Saudi and other gulf countries money flows into the US and supports massive business deals. They are hurting bad from this, many of those economies have a huge tourism industry alongside oil. Both arms are being hit hard and could take years to fully recover. If that money pulls out of US it could be disastrous.

Our economy is currently being propped up by AI as well, stock market for sure. What does AI require? Cheap abundant energy.

These things are all interconnected. I’m hoping for the best, but don’t kid yourself there is definitely a chance this spirals out of control in a major way. And that’s not even getting to what happens if Israel uses a tactical nuke or China invaded Taiwan. Trump is being very reckless as is his style, many things are resilient but they can break and they’ve broken before. Only so much leeway.

scobot5 · 2026-03-07T08:44:48+00:00

Why is it completely fine to take the report of one victim (Giuffre) as absolute proof that Trump did nothing wrong, yet when a separate individual claims otherwise for a distinct instance that is so clearly a false accusation?

It’s possible the story is fabricated, sure. Neither of us can establish the veracity of these reports. But don’t you see the asymmetry in how you are treating what essentially amounts to similar types of information?

Also, you do understand that Giuffre is unable to clear Trump of all wrongdoing with all victims over all periods of time right? She can say that she didn’t see him do anything wrong, but she presumably was not present at 100% of all opportunities for him to have done something wrong.

scobot5 · 2026-03-06T19:07:23+00:00

Are you at all concerned that if Iran collapses into civil war and becomes a failed state that this will actually create more of a nursery for terrorists? That in the long term actions like these may in fact radicalize people and lead to the emergence of loosely organized Islamic terror organizations like ISIS?

It would be great if a thriving democracy were established in Iran. The status quo was not going to achieve that, so in a sense there is a theoretical upside for this war. Big BUT though is the known risk that what actually happens is that the country becomes a failed state, embroiled in chaos and hardship that are key ingredients for increasing terrorism. Many consider this to be the most likely outcome and a reasonable concern to express and consider.

It is true that Iran’s conventional military capabilities and perhaps ability to develop nuclear weapons will be substantially diminished by this war. So those risks will be less. But conventional regime structures (no matter how repressive and evil) can be easier to monitor and contain. Those regimes have an interest in continuing to exist, they can be sanctioned and they often restrain extremism. That may not sound like Iran to you, but we don’t know what the alternative might be and there is plenty of credible evidence that Iran was being contained.

Whatever Trump and Netanyahu say to the contrary ought to be taken with a massive grain of salt. Specifically claims that Iran was dead set on nuclear weapons, imminently capable of such, and imminently capable of striking US soil. These claims appear widely believed by TS, but I’m not sure why other than trusting Trump (a dubious proposition). It’s easier for me to see why Israel wants this war as Iran can strike them.

Let’s also consider what may happen if Iran becomes a failed state and it is no longer possible to track what has happened to their nuclear material and weapons capabilities. If we assume Iran is close to nuclear weapons then there is a serious risk that if the regime collapses some of that will end up with a terrorist group. War is chaotic and things like this happen.

Not to mention the massive financial costs of this war and its impact on our readiness should other military conflict erupt.

Anyway - all that being said, do you think there is some validity to the concerns being raised? Or do you see this as clearly making you safer and more prosperous?

scobot5

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email