Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 15
Oil is now being priced at $126 a barrel. That’s up from $70 before the attack on Iran, so up 80%. Winning!
Just wanted to keep you informed as to how your guy is doing.
That is all. Enjoy the ride.
(PS: I have an EV, powered by solar. It’s really not so bad. Maybe the administration should look into it?)
No. of Recommendations: 12
No. of Recommendations: 5
(PS: I have an EV, powered by solar. It’s really not so bad. Maybe the administration should look into it?)
Goofy, that makes no sense. How in the world is that supposed to help his billionaire buddies in the oil industry?
No. of Recommendations: 21
Hey here’s one for you:
Iran enrichment chart over time.
https://jumpshare.com/share/xymhzB1BlSdl78GLx549If you look closely you can see where Obama signed the original deal, and if you look ever closer you can see where Trump tore it up.
Even more winning! It never seems to stop!
No. of Recommendations: 4
Oil is now being priced at $126 a barrel. That’s up from $70 before the attack on Iran, so up 80%. Winning!Yep. There is a huge gap between futures prices and physical oil for present delivery - which suggests that the market was pricing in a significant chance that Trump was looking for a quick end to the conflict ("four to five weeks!" "ahead of schedule"). Once he started signaling that he might accept a long,
patient approach to the blockade, that possibility had to be discounted greatly.
Ironically, we're now in a position where you might see a decline in oil futures prices if the ceasefire is abrogated and the bombs started dropping again. Normally that kind of escalation would be a bad sign for oil prices - but here, it would signal that the Administration was looking for a faster resolution of the war. News that Trump is being briefed on more, different options today might point in that direction:
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/30/trump-military-pl...The blockade would be a sloooooooooooow weapon. That means high gas prices on Memorial Day and Fourth of July, which Trump probably doesn't want. It would be bearish for oil prices if Trump were to reach for a faster tactic.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Just wanted to keep you informed as to how your guy is doing.
He does not want to know!
Dope, like most MAGA diehards has developed a remarkable cognitive skill:
the ability to treat any evidence of Trump’s incompetence as if it were a pop-up ad, annoying, irrelevant, and instantly dismissed.
Economic blunders, legal chaos, public gaffes?
All ignored, replaced by a carefully curated fantasy where every stumble is actually 4D chess and every abject failure is secretly a win.
Sad.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I hope Trumplethinskin makes history by being the first wartime POTUS to be impeached and removed from office.
It looks like a majority of Americans might be in favor of that too.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rat...
Voters are especially dissatisfied with Trump's handling of cost-of-living issues. In another record low, just 22 percent approved of his performance on that front, a 2-point loss from the Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted April 15-20.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Oil is now being priced at $126 a barrel. That’s up from $70 before the attack on Iran, so up 80%. Winning!
Just wanted to keep you informed as to how your guy is doing.
That is all. Enjoy the ride.
MEGA is more concerned with the end results....the main one being a "REAL AGREEMENT" that ensures Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon. President Trump has specifically called for the total removal of Iran's uranium stockpile and an end to all enrichment activities among others.
MEGA will tough it out while laughing at the crybaby left for amusement and the non ending TDS.
(PS: I have an EV, powered by solar. It’s really not so bad. Maybe the administration should look into it?)</l>
“The cons of a solar powered car were too numerous to list.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"REAL AGREEMENT" that ensures Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon.
Spankee is going to get rid of the nuclear weapons of the US.
Tri-faced, aren't you? Or would that be quad-faced?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Love it when they put my name up. My pets need attention from time to time.
PS. You people whining about $4 a gallon are losers. Live in WA state. We’ve been paying that in Seattle for years thanks to the democrats in Olympia.
No. of Recommendations: 14
PS. You people whining about $4 a gallon are losers. Live in WA state. We’ve been paying that in Seattle for years thanks to the democrats in Olympia.And now you're paying $5.72 per gallon, thanks to the spike in prices caused by war in Iran. Which appears to be an all-time record, slightly exceeding even the very highest peak during the Biden years:
Gas prices have hit a record high in the Seattle area, as prices at the pump nationwide reach the highest they’ve been since the beginning of the war in Iran.
The average cost of a gallon of regular unleaded in the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett area on Tuesday was $5.724, according to AAA, the highest they’ve ever been on average. The price jumped about 11 cents in a week and 19 cents in a month.
Before the war in Iran, the highest price ever recorded in the Seattle area was $5.693, in June 2022.https://www.chronline.com/stories/western-washingt...The Republican Party certainly doesn't want to see those kinds of gas prices lasting through Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, which a months-long blockade would certainly entail. Perhaps Trump, who never has to run for re-election again, might not care.
No. of Recommendations: 24
The Republican Party certainly doesn't want to see those kinds of gas prices lasting through Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, which a months-long blockade would certainly entail. Perhaps Trump, who never has to run for re-election again, might not care.
Krugman has an interesting take on this: “Can a guy who won’t even admit Joe Biden won the 2020 election ever be able to admit he lost a war?”
I think not. Therefore, Tehran has to give up, eventually, or Trump has to be swept out of office, sooner rather than later. The second option seems iffy, given that it takes 67 votes to convict in the Senate - so much of the debate centers around the conflict between the hardliners and the semi-moderates in Tehran.
One estimate (I believe in the WSJ) is that Iran is able to replace about 40% of their “Strait” oil sales with rail and truck shipments through neighboring countries, and replace a similar amount of consumer imports via those same smuggling routes overland. Is that enough to sustain them through a long conflict? I wouldn’t presume to know, except that it’s clear the regime doesn’t really care about the health of the populace, except as it is necessary to ensure their continued power as a ruling force.
One option for Iran is to open up the war again by attacking oil production elsewhere as they did in the first phase to drive prices up even further and put pressure on Trump/the US. With the Strait effectively closed (to both sides) this seems to be the only strategy they might employ short of negotiating an end - but then that requires giving up the uranium stores which they now might consider existential to their survival.
I am reminded of a meme I saw a couple weeks ago, that negotiating the first JCPOA nuclear deal took a couple years, involved experts from the nuclear industry, potential international inspection teams, diplomats with experience in Iran, political leaders from both US parties, members of the Joint Chiefs, other mid-eastern leaders as well as others, and this time our team consists of two real estate guys and JD Vance, who jerked off with a couch.
Sounds like a plan.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Krugman has an interesting take on this: “Can a guy who won’t even admit Joe Biden won the 2020 election ever be able to admit he lost a war?”
I think not. Therefore, Tehran has to give up, eventually, or Trump has to be swept out of office, sooner rather than later.
Not true. There is a third option. Trump "loses" the war but simply doesn't admit it. He claims the U.S. won the war. Heck, he's already announced that we've won several times already.
What it means to "lose" this war will be hotly disputed, and Trump's supporters - and the GOP broadly - will have every incentive to claim that we have "won" regardless of the outcome. All Trump needs to do is get an outcome that is different than the JCPOA, and everyone will carry the water to argue that it's both better than the JCPOA and that it was worth the fight to get it. That seems very implausible to me, if only because the JCPOA reflected a lot of effort and negotiation into the very complicated enforcement mechanisms and the role of international monitoring that the U.S. and Iran simply don't have time to negotiate with the strait on lockdown. An agreement negotiated in a week or month, especially if negotiated without the international nuclear power experts needed to attend to the details, will have tons of loopholes that Iran will be able to exploit, if they choose.
Regardless, if there's an agreement to end the war, it will likely cover one or several topics that weren't part of the JCPOA (by design), and thus allow Trump supporters to claim that it was better. Even if it leaves Iran in a vastly better place than they were under the JCPOA or if we had cut a deal in February.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The Republican Party certainly doesn't want to see those kinds of gas prices lasting through Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, which a months-long blockade would certainly entail. Perhaps Trump, who never has to run for re-election again, might not care.
Happy 250th birthday America! Your present is unprecedentedly high gas prices. Prices like no one has ever seen before! You're welcome.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not true. There is a third option. Trump "loses" the war but simply doesn't admit it. He claims the U.S. won the war. Heck, he's already announced that we've won several times already.Trump The Conqueror is, again, demanding the NATO countries fight his war for him. What if the NATO countries say "OK, only if we have a voice in the peace process". If Trump the God says "OK", everyone else embraces the JCPOA, or the offer Iran put on the table in Oman in February, and makes their peace with Iran. If Trump refuses, than he becomes the sole obstacle to peace.
Thing is, Trump doesn't want the Strait open.
Iran made a good offer, in February. Trump attacked.
When Israel and Lebanon announced a cease fire, Iran declared the Strait open. But Trump said his blockade stays, so Iran closed the Strait again.
"Bibi" wants the Iranian regime crushed and the country tipped into civil war. So no peace proposal from Iran has any chance, including the one that is on the wire this morning.
Oil prices fall after Iran sends updated peace proposal to mediators in Pakistanhttps://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/01/oil-prices-today-b...Meanwhile, the above article reports the Trump regime is insisting this is not, currently, a "war".
Under the 1973 law, a president must withdraw troops within 60 days of notifying Congress of their deployment, unless lawmakers authorize the military action. Congress has not done so.
An administration official said that the absence of direct fire between U.S. forces and Iran since a ceasefire was first agreed to on April 7 means the 60-day clock no longer applies.
“For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28, have terminated,” an administration official told MS Now.Steve
No. of Recommendations: 10
Not true. There is a third option. Trump "loses" the war but simply doesn't admit it. He claims the U.S. won the war. Heck, he's already announced that we've won several times already.My mistake. In my post, I wrote about this as if it were something that were going to happen. I didn't realize at the time of writing that he had already done it:
“We’ve already won, but I want to win by a bigger margin,” Trump told Newsmax’s Greta Van Susteren.
“We’ve destroyed everything. If we leave right now, it will take them 20 years to rebuild, if they ever could rebuild, but it’s actually not good enough,” the president said. “We have to have guarantees they will never have a nuclear weapon.”https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/585915...According to the Administration, the war ended on April 7, and we won it. True, we didn't achieve our war objectives: Iran has not agreed to give up their nuclear ambitions, they still have all their enriched uranium, there no "guarantees" (that Trump says we have to have) in place to keep them from getting a nuke in the future (much less any monitoring or enforcement framework to make sure such an agreement was abided by), they still have more than a thousand or so missiles and a higher proportion of their drone resources, and (of course) the strait of Hormuz is still closed. But that's winning, per the President.
No. of Recommendations: 3
“We’ve already won, but I want to win by a bigger margin,” Trump told Newsmax’s Greta Van Susteren.
In the competitive category of “verbal contortion”, Trump’s is a gold medal performance.
No. of Recommendations: 8
In the competitive category of “verbal contortion”, Trump’s is a gold medal performance.
It's definitely an....ususual way of framing the war. It has to be over, so they don't run afoul of the War Powers Act. Iran War I has concluded. But obviously it can't really be over, because we didn't achieve very many of our war objectives and the Strait is still closed. So we can't leave. We're going to have to start Iran War II at some point, probably. But since we have to pretend that the initial war is over, Trump has to say we won that war - otherwise he leaves himself open to having admitted that we lost the first Iran War. Which is definitely over.
No. of Recommendations: 10
My mistake. In my post, I wrote about this as if it were something that were going to happen. I didn't realize at the time of writing that he had already done it:
“We’ve already won, but I want to win by a bigger margin,” Trump told Newsmax’s Greta Van Susteren.
We won, but he wants to win by a bigger margin?
Kind of like getting drug prices down by 600%.
Here’s a Venn diagram of a) reality and b) Trump world
a&b
O O
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not true. There is a third option. Trump "loses" the war but simply doesn't admit it. He claims the U.S. won the war. Heck, he's already announced that we've won several times already.
Bush Jr did that, too.
Republican wives must be very frustrated, what with their men declaring victory prematurely...
No. of Recommendations: 4
It has to be over, so they don't run afoul of the War Powers Act.
Do you really think he cares about that? He just wants to boast, mostly about fictional things (like his intelligence, his business acumen, and "winning" in numerous contexts). Many of his followers are oblivious and/or don't care, as long as he spouts nonsense they want to hear. They support him. That's all he wants.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Do you really think he cares about that?
Yes. Else Hegseth wouldn't have bothered.
I don't think he cares whether he complies with the law. But he really doesn't like other Republicans balking him. And some of them care about the law. So he would vastly prefer not to have pointed examples of folks out there disobeying his commands and either: i) getting away with it); or ii) getting punished by him and them just becoming an outright opponent. So other things being equal, he'd rather not put Susan Collins in a box where she has to choose between the WPA and Trump. A fig leaf excuse is better than just flatly ignoring. it.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here’s a Venn diagram of a) reality and b) Trump world
a&b
O O
Should be a pair of boobs--CONTACT NOEM ASAP !!!
No. of Recommendations: 15
Remember the President controls gas prices!...
"Gas prices are at crazy levels--fire Obama!!" ~Trump, 2012
"Why isn't Obama protecting us from ridiculous gas prices?!" ~Trump, 2012
No. of Recommendations: 11
I will never understand why any of you all reply to him, let alone start a thread with his name in it. You think this is going to be an Obama/McCain sort of reasoned, policy differential debate?
Stop.
I mean it.
He is not a serious person.
