FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
The least of the things I would brag about regarding Mrs. FiveHour. By far the greatest blessing in my life. Though, also, yeah, I'd brag about it.
If you don't mind, update me on how it goes. I strongly suspect that Mrs FiveHour is going to be on a similar track, long before pregnancy she was on a strict yoga regimen to avoid back pain from her tig ol bitties.
ETA: Asked Mrs. FiveHour, she said to emphasize how natural they look when you do see them.
I was approximately 2 years younger the last time I posted here. Work, relationship, life all got in the way of forum posting for multiple hours a day! I didn't stop browsing though.
Mazel Tov!
Material maybe, but I think that dead servicemen would probably bail Trump out of this one public opinion wise, wouldn't it?
If Iran sinks a USN ship with significant casualties, Americans will be baying for blood.
And now we see famous finger-in-the-wind Haircut Newsom calling Israel an Apartheid State.
The reporting is that the issue is so sensitive that even disclosing it to Congress is impossible.
So give it another month before it's on the WarThunder forums.
Iran seems to have crossed a threshold of corruption that Ukraine managed to just barely avoid. Russia thought it knew everything before going in, Israel seems to have actually known everything.
The hardest part of a two week war is the first six years.
Hopefully he's got strong nuclear football security, given that he's taking over DHS in the middle of an active conflict with a country well known for sponsoring terrorism. Especially given that the DNI appears to be frozen out because of an accusation so bad they don't even know how to talk about it.
Kristi Noem is out as DHS Secretary
Noem is the first Cabinet Secretary to shuffle out of Trump's second admin. Notably, the first Trump admin set records for modern cabinet turnover, and of course Trump is looking to beat those numbers.
Noem faced a number of controversies during her tenure, most of which we argued about at some point, from ICE tactics to ad campaigns given sweetheart deals. Recently she was grilled on a $143mm contract given no-bid to a firm recently created by people tied to the secretary; and allegations she was schtupping her second in command Lewandowski.
Trump says he's appointing her to some kind of sinecure at some new international organization he's creating next weekend.
Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin will replace her. I have to admit, if you had asked me who Markwayne Mullin was, I would have bet $1000 he was a black kid who played defensive line in the SEC, what kind of name is Markwayne anyway?
So what does this tell us about the state of the Trump administration? Turnover is generally bad, but I don't really see why Trump is firing her at this time. I suppose that "When we talk about fraud, we just mean that it should be HERITAGE AMERICANS stealing from the treasury, not Somalis..." is a tough sell? Does this indicate, along with Bovino's ouster, that ICE enforcement is going to take a step back, or change tactics? Combined with the war in Iran, which now will likely last until September according to the Pentagon, does Noem's firing indicate a reshuffling of priorities away from purging immigration domestically and towards classic neocon internationalism
Dogs across the country are very satisfied with this result.
Voting Libertarian, which I mostly do for largely deontological reasons, gives less feedback than voting Democrat within internal Republican autopsies. If it can be shown that Republicans lose elections when they put Israel first, they will be motivated to change their policies.
When it comes to overpricing, I'm sure a lot of insurance companies have also done that, but we don't hear about it because people grumbling about increased premiums isn't exactly newsworthy.
There's an asymmetry to it: one or two insurance companies can get destroyed underpricing, and in the process they will actually crowd out the companies pricing it correctly. But if one or two insurance companies overprice, they just don't get the business, some other company does.
It certainly seems that inasmuch as you have a NATO bloc and an Axis of Resistance bloc, if you compare the Russian air force's performance in Ukraine and the United States/Israel's performance in Iran, you have to come out of it thinking NATO has superior air defense systems.
There's a market that refuses to sell these policies at a reasonable price, we are selling them, therefore they are below market. I'm reading "reasonable" to mean "affordable" as it is typically used colloquially, admittedly one could pedantically argue that the market price is inherently the "reasonable" price but I don't think that's how Trump intended it.
The argument in favor of the policy is that the US has better knowledge that ships won't be hit and thus can offer a better price while knowing they will make a profit on the policies. If the premiums on the policies ultimately pay for the losses, plus/minus the costs of the escorts and protection, then sure it would be a good policy. But this doesn't seem to be driven by actuarial logic so much as by an effort to avoid high gas prices going into the summer driving months in the USA.
Government insurance is historically a dangerous project, where for example Flood Insurance has evolved into a massive subsidy from the pockets of taxpayers into the pockets of people with beach homes.
US to Offer Below Market Insurance Rates to Arab Oil Shipping
CNBC Reports that the United States, in an effort to open Hormuz and avoid a rise in global oil prices, will take a series of steps designed to allow shipping to resume. While this will likely change, as it is definitely a "building-the-airplane-in-midair" policy and may in fact just be the administration trying to backfill a Truth Social post from Trump, we're likely to get something like this occurring.
-- There has been no actual Iranian effort to shut Hormuz at this time, rather Insurers have pre-emptively pulled coverage and as a result tankers are unwilling to risk it. It's questionable whether Iran can actually sink tankers, but the global insurance industry has decided it is not worth the risk. As a result oil prices have jumped a bit, though not insanely, since the war's beginning. The US government is now stepping in to offer insurance that insurance companies refuse to offer, "at a very reasonable price". This would amount to subsidizing foreign shipping companies by offering them below-market pricing for their insurance costs, and if payouts must be made the cost of a single loaded oil tanker is likely to land in $250mm range, and could run higher depending on oil prices.
-- While the argument that oil is a global market and it is important to keep energy costs and gas prices low for the American consumer...doesn't it feel odd to you that we're engaging in a giveaway to Aramco and other oil multinationals? It feels wrong, it feels antithetical to an America-First policy platform. We're using the heavily indebted US treasury to backstop foreign corporations and sovereign wealth funds. The policy itself may be sound, but the framing grates on me: we are escorting foreign ships, we are subsidizing foreign corporations, in exchange for little or nothing. I'd sooner see an agreement framed explicitly as Saudi Arabia paying for protection. If the benefits accrue disproportionately to foreigners, foreigners should shoulder the cost. America should not be in the business of subsidizing foreign shipping.
-- Does this alter the Bayesian probability that the Arab gulf kingdoms were the driving force behind the war in Iran? I'm not sure how to parse it, but it sure seems relevant. Is this indicative that they are not onside and need to be bribed to keep the coalition together? Or is it indicative that their support was the driving force all along and the USG is continuing to operate according to the wishes of Aramco?
-- On the positive, this does seem to be an admirable aligning of interests: the USG is both insurer and protector, so it has "skin in the game" to protect the oil tankers at all costs. Or at least up to $250mm or so a ship. Assuming such a thing is possible.
And in Iraq we said "see, every war doesn't have to be Vietnam! We can just turf out the dictator in a couple weeks and we're done!"
People thought the same thing in 2003-2004 when the United States mowed down Saddam.
See this Capitol Steps lyric for reference to tune of Help Me Rhonda:
Although we didn't find any mass weapons in Iraq
To get rid of Saddam was the perfect reason to attack
And now that we've done so fine
There are some other nasty leaders in line
Why don't we help Rwanda?
That would be a good place to start
Help Rwanda, help, help Rwanda
Help Liberia, help, help Liberia
Help Uganda, help, help Uganda
Then Botswana, help, help Botswana
Help Guyana, help, help Guyana
Then Granola
You mean Angola
Help Rwanda, yeah
We've got bombs that are smart
These exact same conversations were had back then. The US was so strong it could impose its will with no limitations. It was able to bulldoze the vaunted Iraqi army way ahead of schedule, with no meaningful resistance. That proved incorrect.
The United States is in its Chip Kelly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Kelly#Philadelphia_Eagles_(2013%E2%80%932015) era. We're running trick plays and full time hurry up offenses and it's working. Maybe the magic will run out, maybe it won't.
Sorry, misread where you wanted to put US bases.
Did you not say that easy women are of no value to a proper high value man? If yes, then how can easy women be of low value if they provide some value to high-value man in form of this mythical "experience"? So now hoes from the club and dumb prostitutes and OF bimbos are hidden masters of love, who will teach high value men about successful relationship? How?
This feels like it's going to descend into the kind of boxing/MMA discourse about quality of opponent.
Ok, so the promise is easy: the USA engages in a forever war occupying an unfriendly country, while the Iranian government surrenders all legitimacy among its population.
a handful of cranky religious conservatives saying "now it's time to overturn Obergefell
Depending on death luck, it's quite likely that R appointed justices will dominate on the SCOTUS for the foreseeable future. Obergefell is a moral smorgasbord that essentially allows the SCOTUS to write whatever they want into the constitution. It's not going anywhere.
...So we intend to station 500,000 troops in Iran, drawing down to about 200,000 in the next five years, and maintain about 100,000 troops in Iran for the next 80 years while fully integrating Iran into our economic sphere?
The American public just elected a government on the premise that they would focus on reducing inflation and avoid foreign adventurism. That government just instituted a policy of kinetic regime change in Iran, and the CPI is identical to the September before the election.
Would an Iranian democracy be allowed to be democratic, or would it be subject to bombing? How would such a government promise not to develop nuclear weapons in a way that the USA/Israel would trust?
- Prev
- Next

Not to be a pessimist, but my prediction has long been that ROC and PRC would reunify in the near future, but that it would be primarily peaceful and political with minimal violence amounting to protests or riots rather than open war.
Accepting ad arguendo that the USA has demonstrated an ability to engage in impressive acts of violence. The Axis of Resistance basically hasn't had shit-all for the Western bloc in Iran and Ukraine.
But there's also been enormous signals of the decline of a unified Western bloc during the past year.
If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.
More options
Context Copy link