Im actually quite optimistic about Ukraine. Z will f-up a peace deal big, we've had credible queues that the Kremlin takes liberal fearmongering on Trump as canon. They will be maximalists, refuse the first draft offered by Trump. He will feel personally humiliated and do in a year what Biden and rest of them hadnt done in 4. The war wont end in 2025. Maybe not even 2026. After that is anyone's guess.
The AI bit is easy. If AI implodes, there will be a few billions in bailouts and within a year no-one outside of the Bay will care. If AI works, just give people money. As long as swing-voters have cash in their hands or some make-work job, it doesnt matter.
The rest you might be correct, but I have no way to access rn, so will just take your word for it!
I hope you're right on Ukraine, but I'm going to stick by my prediction until there's new evidence.
They tried UBI during COVID and it didn't make people react the way you're saying they would. People actually enjoy working, contrary to popular belief.
I'm more hawkish than you. I think the US can win Ukraine and Iran with little cost.
We don't need to do "democracy building" in Iran either. Take the head off, destroy the military, and the repressed population will take over. The protests proved they're ready.
Knocking out these two authoritarian governments would be huge for the world. I don't think Trump is talented enough, but wouldn't it be nice? -- queue The Beach Boys
Russia's military is in a stalemate with Ukraine using our old equipment. If we give our best equipment and intelligence, I think Ukraine will prevent lose and continue to destroy from distance.
Iran seems (could be playing possum) already defeated by Israel. Strikes on nuclear sites, oil refineries, and some military targets and it might be over.
How much would that cost? I'm sure over runs will be there, but the ultimate cost (people) should be negligible/zero.
We are forced to spend $1T/ye. This could actually buy us something. 🤷🏽♂️
That is a super optimistic view on Iran. I think there's at least a 40% chance that Iran causes trillions of dollars of damage to the global economy (and helps Russia immensely) by mining the straits of Hormuz in the event of a direct strike on Iran (war).
I live in NY and live not that far from New England. It's true, several of my subscribers have assumed I lived in NYC. Could you imagine that? The hudson valley is fairly similar to New England but has pockets of rust-belt in it. Everything west of the catskills feels rust-belty. Even the pizza here becomes more doughy and square. I still don't think NY would ever in a million years go for Trump, too much TDS upstate to counter what goes on in the Rotten Apple.
I'm not guaranteeing that Vance wins NY, but it will be about as competitive as Minnesota is currently. A Democrat state where Democrats will still have to do some campaigning and rallying, and where Republicans will get excited and host the RNC.
I think your last article was more accurate. The Republican Party has changed a lot since the days of Mitt Romney. It has moved to the left on social issues and has become more inclusive in terms of race/ethnicity. It has also leaned into economic populism. I think these trends will continue to build as they have proved successful. This will enable it to stay relevant and capable of winning elections regardless of demographic change. The overall trends that undergird American society are beyond politics.
I don't think my two articles contradict each other. I don't disagree the GOP has changed and will change. I never said the GOP can't win ever, just that it has serious problems for the 2028 election due to foreign policy and economic bubbles.
Disagree with you on Iran. A Trump administration guarantees no war with Iran. No one actually wants a huge war in the Middle East. The only reason all of this chaos has happened so far is that Iran and its buddies could get away with acting up under Biden. With Trump back in power and unambiguously backing Israel, things will wind down quickly. I could be wrong of course, but that's my judgment. Ambivalent on the rest.
"Guarantee" is too strong a word if you want to push it, I'd give it 80% odds of no war with Iran. Not 100%! But still high degree of confidence. If we wanted to bet on it, we'd have to define what "war with Iran" means. If Trump shoots a few missiles into Iran and puts some potholes into their military bases as some sort of warning shot, and then dick all else happens, does that count as a "war?" Does it only count if US troops conduct a ground invasion of Iran as was done with Iraq and Afghanistan? Etc.
A: 90% chance that Trump orders a direct strike on Iranian assets -- Hezbollah, Houthis, etc. Hundreds of people die, millions of dollars.
B: 80% chance he supplies/funds/facilitates Israeli strikes on Iran. Thousands of people die, billions of dollars.
C: 70% chance he funds terrorists (ISIS-K) within Iran. Similar to option B, just more sneaky.
D: 50% chance he orders a direct American strike on Iranian territory and actually takes credit for it, similar to the Syrian strike. Iranians are pussies and no war occurs.
E: 30% chance we just have a full scale war with Iran. This requires the Iranians to not be pussies. Hundreds of thousands dead, trillions of dollars.
You're saying 20%, so we don't actually disagree much, I just think the word "guarantee" is way too strong (1%).
As far as Ukraine, there is much talk of successful offensives and "giving away the country", but yet not a single major city (Kharkov, etc.), has recently fallen or seems as if it is under threat. At best (from a Russian perspective) some kind of tragically small DMZ might get established, but Ukraine still holds in Kursk and the Kremlin refuses further militarization or mobilization.
The Deep State may very well prefer a war with Iran, but Russia is not spiritually or politically capable of taking advantage of that.
@Logan: Ukraine is held together with shoestring promises. Ukrainians are dying because they still believe the cavalry is coming. They continue to receive aid on a daily basis. If the money stops flowing, it's over. I'm sorry, I wish Ukraine really did have the power to defend itself all alone, but it's just not true.
I like to think that "time is on their side" only applies to the defenders, also for Russia to use attrition in a setting where not getting significant annexation of lands can be considered a net loss, time is not at all on their side, except of course if you took into account pre-invasion happenings, like Crimea, Donbass, and Luhansk
Im actually quite optimistic about Ukraine. Z will f-up a peace deal big, we've had credible queues that the Kremlin takes liberal fearmongering on Trump as canon. They will be maximalists, refuse the first draft offered by Trump. He will feel personally humiliated and do in a year what Biden and rest of them hadnt done in 4. The war wont end in 2025. Maybe not even 2026. After that is anyone's guess.
The AI bit is easy. If AI implodes, there will be a few billions in bailouts and within a year no-one outside of the Bay will care. If AI works, just give people money. As long as swing-voters have cash in their hands or some make-work job, it doesnt matter.
The rest you might be correct, but I have no way to access rn, so will just take your word for it!
I hope you're right on Ukraine, but I'm going to stick by my prediction until there's new evidence.
They tried UBI during COVID and it didn't make people react the way you're saying they would. People actually enjoy working, contrary to popular belief.
I'm more hawkish than you. I think the US can win Ukraine and Iran with little cost.
We don't need to do "democracy building" in Iran either. Take the head off, destroy the military, and the repressed population will take over. The protests proved they're ready.
Knocking out these two authoritarian governments would be huge for the world. I don't think Trump is talented enough, but wouldn't it be nice? -- queue The Beach Boys
I think we can win two large regional wars with $10 trillion. What's your budget?
Russia's military is in a stalemate with Ukraine using our old equipment. If we give our best equipment and intelligence, I think Ukraine will prevent lose and continue to destroy from distance.
Iran seems (could be playing possum) already defeated by Israel. Strikes on nuclear sites, oil refineries, and some military targets and it might be over.
How much would that cost? I'm sure over runs will be there, but the ultimate cost (people) should be negligible/zero.
We are forced to spend $1T/ye. This could actually buy us something. 🤷🏽♂️
That is a super optimistic view on Iran. I think there's at least a 40% chance that Iran causes trillions of dollars of damage to the global economy (and helps Russia immensely) by mining the straits of Hormuz in the event of a direct strike on Iran (war).
Who makes money off a world that cannot get oil out of Iran or Russia?
Lost how? It will be inflationary, but US companies will make all the money from it.
Plus it will be great for the climate.
Airfare and car trips cost more but who cares? The US can script it with our oil producers and ship in advance.
We'll be buying long term security by destroying the two countries who bolster terrorism the most. That will provide more real global output.
Can Iran mine a Strait before we blow up their navy? The premise might not even be necessary.
I live in NY and live not that far from New England. It's true, several of my subscribers have assumed I lived in NYC. Could you imagine that? The hudson valley is fairly similar to New England but has pockets of rust-belt in it. Everything west of the catskills feels rust-belty. Even the pizza here becomes more doughy and square. I still don't think NY would ever in a million years go for Trump, too much TDS upstate to counter what goes on in the Rotten Apple.
I'm not guaranteeing that Vance wins NY, but it will be about as competitive as Minnesota is currently. A Democrat state where Democrats will still have to do some campaigning and rallying, and where Republicans will get excited and host the RNC.
I think your last article was more accurate. The Republican Party has changed a lot since the days of Mitt Romney. It has moved to the left on social issues and has become more inclusive in terms of race/ethnicity. It has also leaned into economic populism. I think these trends will continue to build as they have proved successful. This will enable it to stay relevant and capable of winning elections regardless of demographic change. The overall trends that undergird American society are beyond politics.
I don't think my two articles contradict each other. I don't disagree the GOP has changed and will change. I never said the GOP can't win ever, just that it has serious problems for the 2028 election due to foreign policy and economic bubbles.
Disagree with you on Iran. A Trump administration guarantees no war with Iran. No one actually wants a huge war in the Middle East. The only reason all of this chaos has happened so far is that Iran and its buddies could get away with acting up under Biden. With Trump back in power and unambiguously backing Israel, things will wind down quickly. I could be wrong of course, but that's my judgment. Ambivalent on the rest.
Bro... guarantee? Can we bet monopoly money on this? I want bragging rights.
"Guarantee" is too strong a word if you want to push it, I'd give it 80% odds of no war with Iran. Not 100%! But still high degree of confidence. If we wanted to bet on it, we'd have to define what "war with Iran" means. If Trump shoots a few missiles into Iran and puts some potholes into their military bases as some sort of warning shot, and then dick all else happens, does that count as a "war?" Does it only count if US troops conduct a ground invasion of Iran as was done with Iraq and Afghanistan? Etc.
A: 90% chance that Trump orders a direct strike on Iranian assets -- Hezbollah, Houthis, etc. Hundreds of people die, millions of dollars.
B: 80% chance he supplies/funds/facilitates Israeli strikes on Iran. Thousands of people die, billions of dollars.
C: 70% chance he funds terrorists (ISIS-K) within Iran. Similar to option B, just more sneaky.
D: 50% chance he orders a direct American strike on Iranian territory and actually takes credit for it, similar to the Syrian strike. Iranians are pussies and no war occurs.
E: 30% chance we just have a full scale war with Iran. This requires the Iranians to not be pussies. Hundreds of thousands dead, trillions of dollars.
You're saying 20%, so we don't actually disagree much, I just think the word "guarantee" is way too strong (1%).
As far as Ukraine, there is much talk of successful offensives and "giving away the country", but yet not a single major city (Kharkov, etc.), has recently fallen or seems as if it is under threat. At best (from a Russian perspective) some kind of tragically small DMZ might get established, but Ukraine still holds in Kursk and the Kremlin refuses further militarization or mobilization.
The Deep State may very well prefer a war with Iran, but Russia is not spiritually or politically capable of taking advantage of that.
@Logan: Ukraine is held together with shoestring promises. Ukrainians are dying because they still believe the cavalry is coming. They continue to receive aid on a daily basis. If the money stops flowing, it's over. I'm sorry, I wish Ukraine really did have the power to defend itself all alone, but it's just not true.
I like to think that "time is on their side" only applies to the defenders, also for Russia to use attrition in a setting where not getting significant annexation of lands can be considered a net loss, time is not at all on their side, except of course if you took into account pre-invasion happenings, like Crimea, Donbass, and Luhansk
@blank Trump is interested in golf. Policy is determined by whatever Boltonesque horror show is appointed by Susie Wiles.
Trump funded Ukraine, recognized Golan and Jerusalem. That's not "pulling back" but "leaning in."
"Leave Israel alone!" This is a bit naive.