Are you saying we should wash our hands of Iran and let fate run its course with them and the mid east?
I do admit there are times when I have thought that way, but it's a scary proposition.
I do admit there are times when I have thought that way, but it's a scary proposition.
Pretty scary how misguided our young people are on this topic. I know @okclem and @dpic73 and others celebrate this new wave of gen Z voters who largely supports the democrat party, but these stats should be a warning of placing too much stock into the decision making abilities of young people.
I mean, 1/3 of 18-24 year olds think the Hamas attack on Israel is "fake news." It's unreal.
I mean, 1/3 of 18-24 year olds think the Hamas attack on Israel is "fake news." It's unreal.
- 70% of voters think Israel should eliminate Hamas, not end its campaign against Hamas now (ages 18-24: 48%; ages 65+: 82%).
- 63% of voters believe it was right for Israel to cut off power, water and food to Gaza until its hostages are returned (ages 18-24: 41%; ages 65+: 70%).
- 61% of voters say there is no moral equivalency between Hamas' murders and Israel's actions (ages 18-24: 36% – the majority believe both sides have equally just causes; ages 65+: 80%).
- 17% of voters think it is a false story that Hamas terrorists killed 1200 Israeli civilians by shooting, raping and beheading people (ages 18-24: 32%; ages 65+: 10%).
- 46% of voters say that Israel, not Hamas, rules Gaza (ages 18-24: 53%; ages 65+: 32%).
- 33% of voters think the explosion at a Gaza hospital explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike rather than a terrorist rocket that went off-course (ages 18-24: 45%; ages 65+: 13%).
Reading this website does not give me any confidence in older voters either.
How many on here think the election was stolen?
How many think JFKjr is still alive?
How many believe we were energy independent under trump?
How many believe we have an open border?
How many believe that covid was created by democrats in labs in Ukraine?
I could go on and on. The point is, don't lecture dems about their voting block's influence by misinformation. Your party is much, much, much, much worse.
Nice whataboutism.
As I have said exhaustively on here, there is absolutely no shortage of stupidity and ignorance all across the electorate. This distorted world view in young, liberal voters can stand on its own as an alarming trend, though.
It means that they are an oppressive theocratic dictatorship that rules through fear and restriction. Their regular use of violence against their own citizens is a matter of policy. They are also the largest/second largest state sponsor of terrorism and have been for years. Their paramilitary proxies have significant presences on 4 continents and are active on 5. Their current leader regularly encourages violence and genocide based on religion and/or ethnicity. And, they’re pursuing nuclear weapons which they will likely have within 18-24 months. Though I doubt they will be able to systematically produce deliverable long range weapons/systems at scale without help.
I spent a few years working in Europe, Russia, and the Caucasus region in a couple of different roles. Iran is probably the 2nd/3rd most disruptive and dangerous global geopolitical threat that exists today. The resources and capital they dedicate to destabilization efforts globally is a massive problem and one that will have to be either dealt with or paid for at some point, in my opinion. You obviously have a different opinion. And, that’s cool. We can agree to disagree.
It was definitely whataboutism, but the point remains. I dont think it is fair to question the reliability of younger voters without acknowledging the stupidity of older voters. Just look at the first person to like your post. @TigerGrowls , without a hint of irony.
A large percentage of our population is stupid and susceptible to misinformation. It has nothing to do with age or party affiliation. It is usually driven by pre-existing beliefs and confirmation bias.
It is only going to get worse. AI can now make fake videos and audio of politicians saying crazy ****. With our current frontrunners, it isn't necessary b/c they both say enough dumb **** that AI embellishment is not even necessary.
I’m not sure it’s solely the young. They tend to more emotional/passionate and less intelligent/worldly, so they more often fall into this category and are more susceptible to misinformation. But, I think the real danger lies with the people that believe in the infallibility of their political team above all else and cannot objectively and intelligently assess and reassess their stances, candidates, environments, etc. Nothing is static. And nothing is black and white. You have to be able to process info, account for biases (internal and external), and make informed decisions. Stupid people can’t make those evaluations. In short, it’s the all pubs are stupid/all libs are stupid crowd that are the most dangerous. At some point, the adults have to stand up and reign the margins in.
Execept for the adults who bred those young libs. They have done enough damage already.
Seems like we've been through this before, but here it is again:
In 2020, the United States became a net exporter of petroleum for the first time since at least 1949
Young people tend to be heavily liberal including those raised by conservative parents. It’s just the way it works. There is a discussion to be had about the weakness and failures of our educational systems, but your response to what I posted is more than mildly ironic.
sweet sassy molassee.
Exporting more than you import is not energy independence. We still are reliant on foreign energy.
If we assume that your definition of energy independence is correct (it isn't), then we are more energy independent under Biden than we ever were under trump. Which is strange, b/c the TI brain trust told me that Biden destroyed US oil production.
US crude production (bb/day average) peaked in November of 2019. We are close to that level as of the last few months and will likely pass it before year’s end, but have not yet done so.
Wrong thread to argue this, but "my definition"? In simple terms: we have both the capability and the capacity to produce all the energy we consume.
Trying to define it any other way is merely political gamesmanship. So too is it gamesmanship to give Trump all the credit for it. The way was paved under Bush, furthered by Obama, and thus far not screwed up by Trump and Biden.
I don't know why this is the hill the socialist left is so insistent in dying on. There is plenty of credit for this great achievement to go around.
In simple terms: we have both the capability and the capacity to produce all the energy we consume.
I am pretty sure that is not correct. We do not have the refinery capacity to produce all the energy we need.
I didn't notice trump being mentioned in the article you provided. How did he have anything to do with it???
Refinery capacity use is roughly 18,800,000 bpd. Peaked in 2019 at 18,900,000. Consumption is roughly 19,000,000 bpd in the US. We have about 6% of operable refinery capacity being unused. So, yes. We have the refinery capacity.
Our refineries are not equipped to refine the majority of the shale oil that we produce. Therefore, if we stopped importing crude oil tomorrow, our refineries would not have the capacity to refine the amount of energy we consume.
We remain dependent on the import of foreign oil. This is not something that can fixed overnight. It would require billions of dollars of investment.
That was an economics decision for a long time, and the capacity issue is not that dire. I’m sure some of the O&G guys on here are more educated on this front, but Lack of investment in light crude refining capability as light crude production has increased is now largely a function of restrictive policies and/or economics decisions limiting the potential upside of capex intensive infrastructure investment for many companies.
Guest
Unless you're willing to fight another trillion dollar ground war in the Middle East, the Iranian regime isn't going to be beat militarily.
By all means protect our soldiers and counter their influence where we can, but if the regime goes down, it's due to the Persian people, not us.
It’d be pretty simple to beat them militarily. You could basically strike 2 places and completely paralyze them. Minimizing the effect on the people of Iran is where it gets complicated, thus for now it is unjustified. There are still measures that can be taken to hurt them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guest
Yes, the US is going to beat Iran tactically in nearly every situation possible. That doesn't imply beating them strategically or getting rid of the regime.
Regime change needs to come from within. I’m uninterested in playing that game again. Perfectly happy hitting militarily or tactically important assets and making the regime’s life as difficult as possible. Especially if they’re going to continue striking us assets in the area.
OK? I stand by what I said. we do not have the capacity to produce and refine enough of our own oil to sustain our own demand. Therefore we are not energy independent.
Goodness gracious. I'm getting dangerously suspicious that your whole purpose on these threads is just a disagree.
Nevertheless, for the people whose partisan political identity is not tied up in the sentiment, we are effectively energy independent.
Okay, now back to Israel.
This is what I don’t understand. We’re letting them attack US assets without retaliation. It should be well known that any attack on a US asset is swiftly responded to with 20X the force. They take out an airplane, we take out a military base. They damage a gas line, we take out a refinery.
Really guy? I was having a conversation with someone else, then you chimed in to tell me I was wrong, that we are "energy independent". I presented my case why we are not. Now you come back with this weak ****? Saying we are "effectively" energy independent? WTF does that even mean? Now YOU accuse ME of just wanting to disagree?
Goodness gracious.
Yeah. It’s starting to get infuriating. The impotence and general uselessness of this admin and the leadership is appalling.
So you think we should be bombing Iran proper because of proxy attacks on U.S. troops? That doesn't make any sense to me.
I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point that Iran is a "bad" country. Reasonable people can argue about how that came to be. I would argue it was because of U.S. support of the Shah dictatorship, who also regularly used violence against their own citizens (as a policy matter) and ruled through fear and restriction, of a different nature to the theocratic regime of course.
The main thing is how should the U.S. allocate its finite resources, manpower, spending, and attention in a world where it's no longer leading the bingo. To me, Iran is very very very low on that list. Our mission in Iraq and Syria is even lower.
Guest
Last time Iran had a democratically elected leader, we organized a coup to get rid of him because he didn't want foreign companies making money off Iranian oil.
Guest
What happens in this scenario when they decided to shoot, idk, 50 ballistic missiles at Ain Al-Asad? You're going to war with Iran then?
Not yet, and I think ultimately that hinges on the extent to which they escalate attacks. I think you do have to start responding to drone and rocket attacks on American installations with precision strikes to the source.
Last edited by a moderator:
Then those parents, who may be great Americans, mean well etc. screwed up and didn't give their kids the proper grounding to resist the "liberal" biased education system and the stupid ideas and peer pressure from their peers.
Not really. You’re being a perfect example of the kind of person I said is responsible for many of the issues in our country. People that make blanket condemnations of those who disagree with them, are no better than the people you’re condemning for over the top protesting and ugliness.
Conservatism isn’t exclusively right. Just like liberalism isnt exclusively wrong. I don’t mind someone holding constructive opinions when they can elucidate why they hold them no matter what they are. I have a much bigger problem with people who make no effort to be anything but divisive. Further, Just because a kid is liberal doesn’t make them inherently wrong. Some of the behavior of kids on campuses and elsewhere in the wake of this conflict has absolutely been wrong and disgusting, frankly. Most young people lean liberal though. As they mature, some change their opinions.
Yes, actually. We are talking in generalities so I'm making general statements. In general, most liberal kids are inherently dumb. You don't know anything about me. I can and have served as an example for others but not in the way you seem to think. But i don't care all that much what you think anyway, so there is that.
So why are most liberal kids dumb??? How many do you actually know???
Weak? Like your purely partisan definition of energy independence...or your definition of having a conversation with "someone else" on a semi-public forum?
I chose to use "effectively" energy independent because we do still import--but only out of expedience; that and to attempt to humor your otherwise pedantic argument over the 'real' meaning of energy independence. ...you know, giving a little so that we might reach common ground? It was clearly wasted effort.
We've both staked out our positions. Let's move back to the actual topic of the thread.