What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Some of y'all have raised a very interesting question, whether you intended to or not....

Suppose you are Russia. You have a choice:
(a) No sanctions, oil at $25 / barrel
(b) Continue sanctions, oil at $75 / barrel
Which do you choose?

I'd have to do more research to find out how much sanctions are costing Russia compared to how much oil they are selling. There likely is some breakeven point at which they would be neutral.


It seems like, implicitly, most people here have assumed that Russia, by "supporting" Trump's election, would choose (a), while I implicitly assumed that they would choose (b).

Trusting that Trump would remove sanctions would be a gamble of sorts: maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't.
Knowing that Trump would increase US oil production was much more certain.

I doubt Russia really cared very much who won the election, actually.....
 
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

FreshFish said:
Trump has a reputation as a tough negotiator
Click to expand...

Trump is the only person I've heard say this. It's like bragging about how big your dick is, unless an ex-lover confirms it, it's probably not true.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

BassAle said:
Trump is the only person I've heard say this. It's like bragging about how big your dick is, unless an ex-lover confirms it, it's probably not true.
Click to expand...

You either negotiate with him, or his lawyers take over, from what little I know. So in a sense...yeah, kinda staring down a barrel at times....
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

BassAle said:
Trump is the only person I've heard say this. It's like bragging about how big your dick is, unless an ex-lover confirms it, it's probably not true.
Click to expand...

An evaluation of Trump's skills in bed, er, in the conference room. But probably also in bed.
 
I guess I'm putting​ this here because I'm embarrassed, disappointed and want non-snarky discussion but as someone who reluctantly voted for Trump and was hopeful things would change from the standard DC politics, I'm thoroughly embarrassed by our president.
 
cF[Authentic] said:
I guess I'm putting​ this here because I'm embarrassed, disappointed and want non-snarky discussion but as someone who reluctantly voted for Trump and was hopeful things would change from the standard DC politics, I'm thoroughly embarrassed by our president.
Click to expand...

Not to be a dick, but how did you not see this coming? I really don't understand the thought process that would make someone choose trump over Clinton. I honestly am curious.
 
BassAle said:
Not to be a dick, but how did you not see this coming? I really don't understand the thought process that would make someone choose trump over Clinton. I honestly am curious.
Click to expand...

The thought of change. Clinton was the same things that are always wrong with Washington. Not to mention significant policy differences.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

BassAle said:
Not to be a dick, but how did you not see this coming? I really don't understand the thought process that would make someone choose trump over Clinton. I honestly am curious.
Click to expand...

Best case, and while I didn't vote, the following is what I was hoping for: a shakeup of the gub'ment, while getting nothing done because no one likes Trump and would stonewall anything he tried to do. I was not rooting for Trump, but I was also praying that Hillary wouldn't get elected.

In hindsight, I should have known better. I was wrong.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Kepler said:
Reasons to doubt that:

1. Trump is a longtime business partner with the Russians. He's a known quantity.
2. Because of his business interests, Trump may need things from the Russians. That gives them leverage.
3. Trump may be implicated with shady dealings with the oligarchs, who are only criminals who happened to capture a government.
4. Trump hates NATO and will threaten European-American relations. Good for the Russians.
5. Trump hates the Muzzies. Putin hates them, too.
6. Trump's ineptitude and general loathsomeness will weaken America's image abroad. Good for the Russians.
7. Trump hates the Chinese. Good for the Russians.
8. Trump's carelessness could trigger war, driving energy prices through the roof.
9. Finally, Trump can be paid off.

In contrast I can't think of any reason for the Russians to prefer Hillary.
Click to expand...
Not-so-randomly selecting this post to quote, because what thread doesn't need more Kepler?

This discussion should begin and end with Secretary (ptui!) Tillerson. If you think the Russians were in any way disappointed by his selection or were thinking, "Gosh, think of the much better choice we could have had if Hillary were president..." then you are clinically bonkers*.

*another symptom of which is thinking that the extra development of US oil/gas resources under Trump will have any impact on world energy prices.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

How many of the people who are outraged about "too much money in politics" were also concerned with how much money was raised from outside Georgia to fund the Democrat candidate's campaign for the 6th Congressional district?

Is it really "money in politics" that bothers them? or is it merely the source of some of the funds that bothers them?

From the New York Times:

Most of the itemized contributions to Mr. Ossoff were from large Democratic states like California and New York. Just 14 percent came from Georgia, compared with 56 percent of Ms. Handel’s contributions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

FreshFish said:
How many of the people who are outraged about "too much money in politics" were also concerned with how much money was raised from outside Georgia to fund the Democrat candidate's campaign for the 6th Congressional district?

Is it really "money in politics" that bothers them? or is it merely the source of some of the funds that bothers them?
Click to expand...

If you're asking me, I'm concerned by the fact of money in politics, no matter who it benefits. I want to shut off the spigots to everyone by everyone. A personal cap of 1/10th the median US income on every person. That means about $6k from you, me, Soros, and each Koch. The money can go to any combination of candidates and PACs, but the aggregate can't exceed that $6k.

Spending isn't speech, it's just the coercion of wealth.
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
How many of the people who are outraged about "too much money in politics" were also concerned with how much money was raised from outside Georgia to fund the Democrat candidate's campaign for the 6th Congressional district?

Is it really "money in politics" that bothers them? or is it merely the source of some of the funds that bothers them?

From the New York Times:
Click to expand...

I think there should be a constitutional amendment outlawing the designated hitter, but I still want the Cubbies using it when they play interleague games in the meantime.

It's not hypocritical to play by the rules while wanting them changed.
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

*shrug*

Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire. We're stuck with this system, so no, I'm not going to whine too much about contributions from "carpetbaggers".
 
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

An interesting piece, in light of the thread.

Stanford Professor Shanto Iyengar and his colleagues recently found that, when it comes both to trusting other people with your money and evaluating the scholarship applications of high school seniors, Americans today are less friendly to people in the other political party than we are to people of a different race. The researchers conclude that “Americans increasingly dislike people and groups on the other side of the political divide and face no social repercussions for the open expression of these attitudes.” As a result, today “the level of partisan animus in the American public exceeds racial animus.” That’s saying something!

But if polarization is all around us, familiar as an old coat, what about its opposite? What would depolarization look and sound like? Would we know it if we saw it, in others or in ourselves? Perhaps most importantly, what are the mental habits that encourage it?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

How is the sudden rush to destroy monuments and statues of figures from the losing side of The War Between the States any different than the Taliban destroying a Buddhist shrine or ISIS destroying Christian chapels?

"Oh, we are so offended by the very sight of these things that we cannot allow them to stand any longer; it is just fine for us to impose our world view on anyone who dare disagree with us because our cause is righteous and our hearts are pure."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top