The Philosophy Discussion Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 5:47 pm The day he was playing 4 dimensional chess.

I'm sure we'll be told something like that by the people still following him. He's lost the support of a lot of conservative commentators. People who backed him before.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 2:24 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 2:09 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 3:50 pm

One day Trump is a moron.
Another day, Trump is a master manipulator.

No. He's a moron every day. Nothing I described there requires a genius to set up, nor does it require one to spot the obvious pattern.

You have very low standards if you think that's masterful manipulation. You must fall for every scam going.... what have you bought from Trump? I bet you have that shitty Chinese phone he sells.

I've never called him either a moron or masterful manipulator.
But you must admit, such opinions are floating about in like-minded thinkers.

Such judgments are oft' reserved for those who use non-contextual facts to support preconceptions.

However, objectively speaking, any individual with the power to manipulate world markets, which apparently is an expressed perception due to the timing of ancillary financial events relating to the Iran conflict (the word "war" in place of conflict implies an actual military contest rather than a technologically facilitated duck shoot), such deliberate timing would require a boldness of manipulation akin to Nancy Pelosi's improbable financial portfolio that could be called a masterful manipulation of insider trading, for those viewing through a conspiratorial, ulterior-motive prism, and boldness is often mis-likened to masterful, especially in the short term.

Perhaps you should make the definitions of masterful and moron dependent upon results rather than theory.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 5:30 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 2:09 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 3:50 pm

One day Trump is a moron.
Another day, Trump is a master manipulator.

Which kind of days was it when he said over and over with disgust and passion that he would not get involved in regime change wars.

He's involved in regime destruction, and he's attempting to stay out of what regime that changes into.
That should not be difficult since the region is so dependent on Iranian oil and the deprivation of that, will make it once again accessible.

He has made his primary intent very clear, many times. Iran shall have not have the bomb. Red line. Then, the oil becomes accessible to the region and the Straits are not so Dire.

Trump says lots of things to facilitate that, and to keep those who would destroy him, and the United States, off balance and jabbering about his hair.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 5:47 pm The day he was playing 4 dimensional chess.

Indeed.

Is he a tool of inevitability, or an actual creator of events?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RKEjfIDEys

Now what? Does the US have any cards in our deck? Has Trump toppled the US empire by picking the wrong fight?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 2:58 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RKEjfIDEys

Now what? Does the US have any cards in our deck? Has Trump toppled the US empire by picking the wrong fight?

Never assume that a leader is an idiot, when the idiocy leads to things the people in power want to have happen.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 6:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 2:58 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RKEjfIDEys

Now what? Does the US have any cards in our deck? Has Trump toppled the US empire by picking the wrong fight?

Never assume that a leader is an idiot, when the idiocy leads to things the people in power want to have happen.

So do you think Trump knew that his effort would lead to disaster for us?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 3:50 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 3:12 pm

Radagast wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2026 1:00 am
1) Vance has been put in charge of the surrender negotiations precisely so that he can be blamed for the resulting agreement, if there is one. So my first prediction is that Trump will blame Vance for the outcome, but will do so obliquely.
1a) A corollary of (1): Rubio will expend a lot of hot air explaining how he could have obtained a much less bad outcome than Vance did.

Viewed through that prism:
...

It's the weekend and the markets are closed. So Trump today announced that he will, having failed to open the straits, will blockade them instead.

This is a fairly familiar pattern now though, so let's see if it plays out in the usual corruption seen over the last few weeks. Tomorrow stock markets will fall as the price of oil rises again. After markets close for the day, miracle of miracles, Trump will tweet something that promises to send the oil price down and stock market up again on Tuesday.

15 minutes before that tweet, a series of brand new Polymarket accounts backed by untraceable bitcoin wallets will place a series of bets and each make their bearer a small fortune of untraceable gains. Meanwhile a billion or so dollars will be placed into leveraged positions betting on a falling oil price, and the holders of those untraceable accounts will make huge gains, well into the hundreds of millions of dollars range.

Same as last week, and the one before. And the one after next.

Bit of a mixed bag for my predictions there. On the one hand there was an announcement that moved the oil price dramatically, on the other it was a few days later than I expected. But in my favour, 20 minutes ahead of the announcement ... investors placed a bet worth about $760 million on a falling oil price ... but that announcement wasn't from Trump, it was the Iranians.

So does that mean others have worked out the scam, and basically stolen it from Trump?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2026 2:58 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RKEjfIDEys

Now what? Does the US have any cards in our deck? Has Trump toppled the US empire by picking the wrong fight?

If as Cooke says Iran is attempting to overturn an order of control (paradigm) over it which has been in operation for decades, and if it were to do so would allow it to become an even more formidable adversary in the region (and one not to the liking of other states in the region) then it becomes all the more imperative not to allow Iran to win here.

Interestingly, from my perspective, is the absolute contradiction from those reporting on this conflict. Take Meersheimer for example. He describes complete loss for the US. But other analysts are far more optimistic. It is almost impossible to get a clear picture of what is really happening. And certainly in Iran itself.

However, here is a perspective that I sense is accurate.

Siyamak Khorrami grew up in Iran and has direct contact with people there right now. What emerges is a portrait of a country where the tension between the government and the people it governs has been building for decades. In this conversation, he walks through what that tension looks like from the inside and who actually holds the power to change it.

where's Mark Knopfler when you need him?

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 1:25 pm where's Mark Knopfler when you need him?

-Imp

Co-founded Dire Straits and he produced their album "Brothers in Arms". The man is clearly a prophet.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 12:28 pm Interestingly, from my perspective, is the absolute contradiction from those reporting on this conflict. Take Meersheimer for example. He describes complete loss for the US. But other analysts are far more optimistic. It is almost impossible to get a clear picture of what is really happening. And certainly in Iran itself.

You're not paying attention to the lessons of history. If the other side in a conflict against a great power has any means to hurt that power, they will win a war in which both sides suffer, even if their own side's suffering is far worse. America and the USSR both fell foul of this in Afghanistan. The USA and France both lost because of this in Vietnam.

The current conflict is obviously premised on the fallacy that by not occupying enemy land with American troops, somehow America would be safe from hurt. So now you will have to find out if the American consumer is willing to put up with high petrol prices indefinitely. The famously hardy American consumer, versus the oppressed people who are used to suffering... who's going to stick that one out?

Incidentally, this is an election year in many places, America included. After the 2024 election, when all the alt-right types were banging on about mandates, a wise man who is completely me mentioned that actually the incumbents lost almost every election in the world that year, which is normal when inflation is high everywhere. So if this is still an ongoing thing anywhere near late summer, you can probably kiss the Senate majority goodbye.

It seems to me that the most important thing to do right now is to deescalate hostilities somehow and work toward peaceful transition of our world from a hegemony into a multi-polar world. However, Trump has opened a can of bees by invoking a hostile trade war with China and stoking an unprovoked war with Iran. It's going to take some doing to bring about peaceful transition. Can we rely on Trump or his successors to settle things down now that Trump has pushed everything to the edge.

The American empire is over. The world has a lot of important work to do, getting to a point where nations can cooperate peacefully and serious alternatives to fossil fuels can be further explored. And the battle of the babies has got to stop. Churning out human beings to stoke populations for military advantage has got to stop. The Earth cannot handle many billions of human beings consuming fresh water, fuel and creating environmentally damaging waste.

Can we get to the other side of history (a multi-polar world) safely with everyone who is here now reasonably 'intact'? I don't think an environmentally perishing world can afford a bunch of total wars going on (let alone having one of them escalate into a nuclear conflict). It's probably 'do or die'. Make the world a better place or there's going to be no world at all for us, until (or if) evolution can replace human beings with less malicious species.

Sobering, I know. But pessimism or conservative reactionism (turning back the clock) is not going to carry us through the long term.

Just FYI.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 12:06 pm It seems to me that the most important thing to do right now is to deescalate hostilities somehow and work toward peaceful transition of our world from a hegemony into a multi-polar world.

"Peaceful multi-polar world," is a conceptual ideal that only manifests locally and temporarily, but not forevermore in reality. Working towards the ideal is currently underway in Persia by taking away the tools of terror, although taking it from minds is the actual necessity.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 12:22 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2026 12:06 pm It seems to me that the most important thing to do right now is to deescalate hostilities somehow and work toward peaceful transition of our world from a hegemony into a multi-polar world.

"Peaceful multi-polar world," is a conceptual ideal that only manifests locally and temporarily, but not forevermore in reality.

OK. Thank you for your reply.