Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Grant

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
1
Taiwan needs to invest in HIMAR systems. Blow up the ships before they even put out the landing craft.

Taiwan needs to invest in a lot of stuff.

I'll remind everybody that in 2014 Russia basically was able to walk into Crimea.  Ukraine had 8 years to get ready for round two.  With lots of help.  Not as much as I would have liked of course, but some people were worried about pissing off the Russians or trying to get dirt on some servers. 

Taiwan needs to take this stuff seriously.  And they need help.  The United States has been somewhat hands off for quite awhile.  Their best fighter is the F-16.  Their training and readiness doesn't seem to be the best because for YEARS nobody really believed that China and Taiwan would ever fight. 

It's true that the terrain and the difficulty of amphibious operations gives Taiwan the advantage.  But they shouldn't use that advantage as a crutch.  The Chicoms are taking the whole thing seriously. 

I don't think HIMARS is really the answer.  I would suggest they need to invest in as much air defense as they can possibly buy.  They already have some of the best stuff, but they need more of it and they need to be building it faster than the Chinese are building their ballistic and cruise missiles.  Because that is what the opening wave of the war will be.  About a million ballistic and guided cruise missiles.  Then Taiwan needs even more air defense to control the straight against aircraft.  Then they need a good enough air force to take on the PLAN.  That's honestly a lot to ask for.  But if they are going to just give up on airspace control, and just try and slog it out on beaches and on land, it's going to get very ugly I think. 

But, the hardest thing to figure out before hand is just how hard an army is going to be able to fight, or how inept they will be. 

2
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 21, 2022, 06:23:46 PM »
It's a fascinating contra-historical interpretation there. 

Yes, it is fascinating, isn't it?  ::yawn::

There is a bunch of stuff there, but I had to sift through it all to find what the stasis was.  IE, what was the point of contention. A bunch of the things you write I never stated a position against. 

I mean, there is a whole  bunch of word salad in there to simply say "the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the government". 

I notice you are making a bunch of claims without receipts.  I will bring some if you like. 

But if you go back and read what I actually wrote, you will note that my primary point was not that the 2nd Amendment was not seen as a way to curtail the power of the Federal Government over the states, but that it was seen as a last ditch effort, and that the purpose of the militias were primarily to defend against foreign enemies, not domestic ones. 

So instead of starting with the receipts, I would rather propose some thought exercises.

1)  What exact domestic enemy were the people of the United States, or the States themselves, existed that required a militia, in 1785? 

Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no President.  Only a Legislature with next to no powers.  There was no standing army.  New Hampshire really did not have much to fear from Massachusetts.  The militias existed primarily to protect against the British, the French, the Spanish, and Native Americans.  So again, in 1785 to 1787, where was the domestic enemy? 

2)  Why did the founders not include the right to bear arms in the original draft of the Constitution?  Why is it not among the original seven articles?  What was the purpose of the Constitution and why did the framers believe that it wasn't important to add the right to bear arms? 

Firstly, most of the states already had the right to bear arms in their state constitutions.  The framers did not see the need.  The problem in front of them wasn't a Federal Government that was too strong.  The primary problem that faced the framers was a federal government that was TOO WEAK.  The solution was to build a federal government that had expanded powers.  They understood the reticence against a federal government with stronger powers, but you will notice that they did not include the right to bear arms.  Again, they did not need to because it was already in the state constitutions, and because they sought to constrain the rise of tyranny through other means. 

After all, if the only thing the country needs to prevent tyranny, why not just set up a single President without a Legislature, but just make sure that he cannot raise an army and have all the guns owned by private citizens?  That will prevent tyranny if that is the primary purpose of bearing arms, is it not?  The Constitution could have been one line: 

"Everyone gets a gun"

And that could have been it.  No more tyranny.  Hoo-rah.  Why bother with all the other words?  Why bother with separation of powers or checks and balances? 

Do you really want the first line of defense against domestic tyranny to be an armed population?  That's like saying you should never buy locks for your house, or pay taxes for a police force, or get cameras, or move to a safer area.  JUST BUY GUNS! 

Instead, the framers spent a great deal of time BUILDING A FRAMWORK OF A GOVERNMENT.  They didn't spend a bunch of time planning what to do when the house they were trying to build collapsed or caught fire.  They spent their time planning a house that would not collapse or catch fire.  They had a hierarchy of control, and guns were the last in line, and it's easy to see why.  They spent their time balancing the powers and separating the powers of the executive, the judicial, and the legislative.  They spent days debating on how tyrannies arose and how governments failed.  They never said, "well all they needed were more guns".  RNGesus! 

One of the chief powers that the constitution would give the new government was to ALLOW IT TO RAISE A STANDING ARMY.  Now, this was something that indeed made many of the anti-federalists freak the *censored* out.  A bunch of those state constitutions specifically had in their right to bear arms the idea that standing armies are dangerous, the right to bear arms defended against them, and that the army must always be under civilian control.  BUT THAT WAS IN THE STATE CONSTITITIONS.  The Constitution as written not only gives the federal government the right to raise a standing army, but it gives the duty to arm the state militias and provide training to the same federal government.  Does it sound to you like the founders of our country were terribly worried about the army becoming a tool of a tyrant? 

Now, obviously some people were freaked out.  But they were the losers.  They didn't create the United States of America.  They didn't create anything.  They would have stopped the creation of the country.  People like Patrick Henry faded into the sunset, while people like Monroe and Clinton were brought around. 

Obviously the militia was very important to the framers.  Otherwise, why give the duty to the federal government in arming and training them?  But again, the purpose of this was to strengthen the militia in it's primary mission of defending against foreign aggression, not domestic tyranny.  The same goes for the formation of the army.  The army wasn't meant to suppress the people.  It wasn't meant to be the tool of a tyrant.  And the framers spent their time setting up a government that made tyranny very difficult. 

It's in vogue amongst some that the Presidency is toying with tyranny.  That is crossing the line.  Etc Etc.  Yet in most of these cases when the Presidency oversteps it's bounds, it is the law and the constitution that stops tyranny.  Not people with guns.  You see, the guns are there to serve the law, not the law there to serve the guns.  The guns are in themselves not a good. They are there to support a good.  The common defense.  Lawyers have done more to prevent domestic tyranny than yahoos with rifles.  When the yahoos with rifles try and sort things out themselves, you have things like the Civil War.  Didn't really work out well. 

Obviously things like the 2nd Amendment were added after ratification because there was a sizable portion of the population that was concerned about the possibility of a standing army being a tool of tyranny.  But it was an afterthought.  IT WAS!  It wasn't even included at first!  Most of the states ratified it WITHOUT IT!  Because again, the states already had it in THEIR CONSTITUTIONS.  Again, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to create a stronger federal government, and to protect against that stronger federal government with checks and balances and separation of powers, not with militias. 

I'm not making this up.  I'll bring the receipts.  And you can find yahoos like Patrick Henry who didn't like it, but he's not really a founder is he?  He didn't really write anything in the Constitution, did he?  Or the rest of the Anti-Federalists.  They couldn't create jack *censored* because they were too paranoid and couldn't trust anybody. 

3
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 19, 2022, 02:53:58 PM »
Best funeral.  Top notch.

The only thing would have made it better is if they had shot her out of a photon torpedo tube into a solar orbit and next episode she is revived by science in the 31st century and 25 years old again to fight Space Russians who have genetically engineered Serpentor using the DNA of Stalin, Lenin, Lennon, Pooter, Tarasov, and Malkovich. 

4
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 19, 2022, 02:03:47 PM »
BBC Commentator referred to CAPRI as "Jill Biden", not "Dr Jill Biden". 

Wars have begun that way, Mr. Beebs. 

5
Quote
Part of this is honestly the reaction of Uncle Joe and Petunia.  They've pretty much broken the mold when it comes to strategic ambiguity.  Pretty much stating that the US would assist Taiwan in case of a war.

Speaking of which, on an interview with 60 Mynewts aired last night, Uncle Joe states that the US would commit US forces to defend Taiwan from an "unprecedented" attack by Chyna.  Immediately afterwards the Whitehouse walked the statement back stated that the situation has not changed. 

LOL.  This is a new form of Strategic Ambiguity.  Where the President says one thing and immediately afterwards his staff says something different.  LOL.  I don't know if it's planned or not, but it works.  China probably doesn't know WTF we'd do. 

6
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 19, 2022, 12:57:28 PM »
LOL.  Finally a real debate. 

Dude roller blades right out in front of the King's Rolls two days ago.  Get's tackle slammed by 5-6 Bobbies and zip tied up.  Accusations of thuggery and fascism abound, lol. 

And get this, they let the guy go. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11221089/Rollerblader-bundled-floor-Met-Police-narrowly-missing-King-Charles-car.html


7
General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 19, 2022, 12:43:33 PM »
But on the other hand if a lawyer really wants to work pro-bone for the good of Trump then they could just do so -

Frankly, I would be very worried about any attorney who agreed to work for The Lord Declassifier pro-bone. 

8
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 19, 2022, 12:23:56 PM »
I wonder if technically and factually the President is correct about the pandemic being over. I just looked something up out of curiosity. The WHO declared Covid a pandemic on March 11, 2020. U.S. Covid deaths on that day were 6 with a seven day average of 4. A few days ago on September 16, 2022 the U.S. Covid deaths were 743 with a seven day average of 518. I'm not seeing how the math adds up to the Covid pandemic being over.

RNGezus, Cherry. 

First off, when WHO declares a pandemic is has nothing to do with the number of deaths or the average number over a 7 day trend in the United States itself. 

It has to do with a fatality rate.  Which is your total fatalities divided by your total morbidity. 

It's about RISK, which is severity TIMES probability. 

The RISK is much lower now because the severity has dropped.  Your fatality rate is lower.  Probably MUCH lower since I suspect massive underreporting BECAUSE the fatality rate is lower.

Now, if you want to make an argument that the United States could be doing MUCH better when it comes to dropping it's fatality rate or it's transmission rate NOW, or in the past two years, I'd probably agree with you.  But between the wackos and the Libertarians there wasn't much room to maneuver in the United States.  The noise to signal ratio was extremely high, and the signal was never that strong to begin with. 

And just to clarify, in case you havn't figured it out yet, the total fatalities and total morbidities that the WHO is tracking has to do with the fatalities and morbidity in THE ENTIRE WORLD.  Which includes CHYNA.  That's why they're the WORLD Health Oganization, not the "Cherry's Backyard Health Organization". 

$$^&!!!

9
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: September 19, 2022, 11:27:03 AM »
The problem of course is that we're in a negative results ooda loop with cause and effects and effects and causes creating a cycle that is not conducive to politics and business. 

It's true that the hospitalization and death rates are extremely low now compared to earlier last winter.  Especially since, in my personal opinion, I suspect that cases are vastly underreported now.  But the results of having a lower hospitalization or mortality rate means less protection, means higher morbidity, means higher mortality. 

1. New strain is not as virulent
2. Low hospitalization and mortality rates
3. People relax, less masking, stop taking boosters, under report, go to work sick
4. Rise in total hospitalizations and deaths

But even with all that, we're just not seeing the total hospitalizations and deaths getting as high as they have in '20, '21, and very early '22.  And people ARE getting sick and it is spreading bad. 

The virus has either weakened or it killed off the people it could, like a fire simply exhausting itself by consuming all the brush. 


10
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 19, 2022, 10:48:56 AM »
Somebody should be leading the surviving two corgis on leashes behind the casket.  Like Edward VII had his dog following his riderless horse with the boots backwards. 

I have it on good authority that drinking Canadian beer gives the royal corgis the *censored*s. 

11
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 19, 2022, 09:42:42 AM »
Really disappointed that Leslie Jones isn't a commentator for this funeral.  Maybe she is live tweeting it. 

Nope.  Though she did livetweet last night's episode of HotD.  So she has her priorities.   

12
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 18, 2022, 10:13:29 PM »
Well, "The queue to attend the lying-in-state is at final capacity and is now closed to new entrants.  Please do not attempt to join the queue". 

All world leaders were invited to the funeral, and will either attend or have a representative, except the following countries who were not invited:

Afghanistan
Venezuela
Myanmar
Syria
Belarus
Russia


They are of course free to have their own funeral.  The death of Pooter or Assad would certainly be a reason for festivities. 

Poor a cup out for that dude who showed up to the queue 10 seconds late.  Just don't pour out any Canadian beer.  I hear it would be classified as a toxic spill and need to be reported to the EPA or EA. 

13
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 18, 2022, 10:05:43 PM »
Hey, slagging on US beer is a Canadian pastime.

Canada has won zero world wars or superbowls. 

14
General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 18, 2022, 03:09:53 PM »
There is actually a fair bit or reporting via alternative channels indicating that the lack of lawyers has to do with major and minor law firms putting down a firm "You shall not" policy in place in regard to Trump. So while the individual lawyer might be inclined to do so, the law firms they're part of are not, out of concern that other paying customers they represent will seek out representation elsewhere.

So while they might be chomping at the bit to represent Trump if they could, even if it'd be pro-bono, they're not willing to lose the paychecks they're getting from their current jobs to do so.

"Alternative Channels". 

What, like UHF? 

Truth Social?  Or maybe the Q-Underground. 

Next time I don't want anybody to believe anything I write, I will tell them my source was from "alternative channels". 

This sounds like the title of an Alexis Texas film from 2003 translated into Tagalog. 

I need air quote emojis because actual quotation marks don't do the job. 

I have heard through alternative channels that there are a billion lawyers in the United States that are not associated with major or minor law firms.  They seem to be equally unavailable.  My guess is that they are terribly concerned about actually getting paid.   

15
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 18, 2022, 02:58:29 PM »
Don't attack Tom just for preferring a higher grade of Gin. Some people are picky about their spirits.

Oh, now he's a toff.  I suppose he hates Budweiser too and only drinks Stella Artois or Peroni. 

16
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 18, 2022, 01:04:30 PM »
I feel like they could have strapped each of the Queen's limbs to a drone and flown her around England to do home visits for about as much expense.

Tom is Anti-Beefeater and Anti-Constable and Pro-Dronepilot. 

Why do you hate Beefeaters, Tom? 

17
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 18, 2022, 11:44:21 AM »
"A decision will be taken today on when entry to the queue will close as it reaches final capacity.  To avoid disappointment please do not set off to join the queue". 

OK.  First I want to recognize that I have a problem.  But the good news is that this is self limiting. They're closing the queue.  They're going to put the lady into the ground.  And hopefully I can find something else to fill the void that has been taken up watching these people get to the end of the line.  But I will tell my grandchildren about this. 

So T-Time (ha ha) will be roughly 1200 Zulu.  It is now 4pm in London, so we are T minus 20h now.  So the queue will be closing probably soon.  At least by 3 to 6pm Romeo.  Interesting that I just learned that the UK has it's version of daylight savings time, called "summer time".  I actually like that better because I never have to look up to figure out if I am in daylight savings time or standard time. 

Hopefully no riots, but if you show up late you can always stay for the funeral procession. 

Some singles have formed some relationships.  I don't know if it's the best place to meet women in London but hey.

I suppose this is what it will look like at Barnes and Nobel when The Winds of Winter finally drops.  The line for The Deathly Hallows was fun but I feel I was maxed out there.


18
General Comments / Re: More incitement?
« on: September 17, 2022, 04:07:40 PM »

Is it incitement? What would happen if a Democrat said that BLM riots were likely if another cop murders somebody? Would it be a warning, or encouragement. I'm a little on the fence about this. I think it is all in their tone, less than the words. They're not saying "I'm worried people might react this way." They're saying "the people would be justified to react this way". At least that's the way it feels to me. I'm sure we could find some Democrats using parallel language with respect to riots, but it isn't Chuck Schumer or other Senators, AFAIK.

I dunno.  I know that given that MAGA is basically His Highnoss The Great Declassifier's followers, and given his sway over them, the responsible thing to do is to say that rioting SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.  That rioting would be WRONG.  A believer in the justice system and the rule of law should communicate this to their followers and that rioting is illegal. 

BLM isn't really attached to a particular politician so not sure if any of them would make a difference. Though it would help if Democrat politicians actually did instead of sympathizing.  Part of the crux of BLM is that the justice system does NOT work, and that the rule of law is a farce and part of a systemically racist system, so I'm not sure if I expect them to be anything but they are.

I think the way MAGA looks at it, is that if BLM can do wrong, they should be able to do wrong as well.  It's a good argument that selective execution of the law encourages criminal activity.  Nevertheless, it does not absolve a person from criminal activity.  At least not in my eyes.  I bet a good lawyer might be able to make a case and get somebody off. 

Now, my take is that Lord L'Orange Defender of Amurica is indeed not a responsible individual.  That he really doesn't believe in the justice system, or really any concept of justice that I would recognize as such (though he's not alone in this).  Given this, and given his statement, I am not really as struck by the concept of incitement as I am of a clear threat against the Department of Justice.  The statement, "If you prosecute me, my followers would riot", seems to me to be a clear threat against the government. 

I think the threat is serious.  I see enough people already crapping themselves, who are far from MAGA on the right.  They might be called Conservative Nationalists, but they're a bit mellow compared to some. They don't love Trump.  They love what he represented in their eyes.  Some kind of RETURN to goodness and greatness and common sense and justice.  But they are more scared of the country being "torn apart" then they are of what happens when you let a thug who has a mob dictate justice to the people. 

I mean, I think the incitement is still to come.  This is just the threat section.


19
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 17, 2022, 11:54:49 AM »
I was trying to let things go.  As far as I know a relative gave them my number and one who curses their father is cursed themselves. 

I don't even mind John James.  And John Kennedy is kind of a joke to me. 

But this morning I got a text from Jim Jordan. 

So...

"You will become a thing of horror, a byword and an object of ridicule among all the peoples where the LORD will drive you."

Deuteronomy 28:37

Chew on that, RNC. 

20
Taiwan is strategic for the US, would have a totally different motivation to protect it. TSMC makes 90% of the world's advanced semiconductors. Ukraine had trade amounting to 5 billion. Taiwan is 105 billion.

This is the sort of statement, I feel, that were I a Ukrainian woman whose country had been attacked and whose people were being killed and who desperately need all the help they can get, I would feel put out by.  We have rated the importance of their lives and their country as to the amount of trade we have with them.  How much money and stuff we get from them.  What important stuff we can get from them.  It's not exactly what I would call friendship.  It would probably be insulting. 

I mean, I understand the cold logic of realism in foreign policy does this.  But what I find strange is that often the same people who have this view of foreign policy, of others, have a completely different view when it comes to domestic policy.  The United States should only help those that it has an "interest" in, AKA makes us money.  But their view on immigration, healthcare, public works, welfare, and social services in general are often completely different.  It seems to me that a person with such a cold realist approach to foreign policy and foreign peoples, should have the same approach to domestic policies as well.  "What is in it for me"?  "Why should I pay to help others if there is nothing in it for me"?  "What is my interest"?  I find this dichotomy to be inconstant at best and hypocritical at worst. 

If relations between states or nations should be as relations between individual people, then I see no reason why New York should send ambulances and aid to Mississippi if it gets hit by a hurricane.  I'm sure that New York State does more trade with France than it does with Mississippi. 

But beyond a moral evaluation of the matter, I think we could expand the definition a bit further, in an exercise to meet the realists on their home ground.  After all, I think few would argue, even idealists, that the heart should rule all matters in foreign policy. 

I would offer that the United States does have an interest in Ukraine.  It specifically has an interest in if Russia conquers Ukraine, beyond the amount of trade we have with the country.  After all, presumably if Russia took over the country, trade would resume and be basically the same. 

First, the United States has an interest in maintaining the integrity of national sovereignty.  I hear some howls in the background, but try not to lose the script.  If you think the United States has violated this, we might disagree, but we should both agree that the US SHOULD respect national sovereignty and has an interest in maintaining that respect throughout the world.  I have no time for whatabouts here or tu quo.  The sovereignty of nations must be respected and maintained, regardless of a nation's contribution to another's GDP.   When the system breaks down in once place, it effects the entire system. 

Secondly, the United States has an interest in not having a belligerent nation suck up and absorb another.  The Ukraine is a powerful country.  With many brave people.  It's quite likely that many people in the United States think of Russia as some powerhouse and a nation like Ukraine as some kind of lightweight.  But a quick look at the CIA factbook would show otherwise. The US has no interest in seeing a nation that has shown itself to be hostile to US foreign policy aims and hostile against US allies, to grow stronger by conquering and absorbing a neighbor.  However powerful Russia is, it would be more powerful if it absorbed the people, economy, and military of Ukraine.  That is just the simple fact.  It is not in the interest of the United States to have Pooter's Russia begin an imperial expansion into eastern Europe. 

Why you ask?  Why should we care about eastern Europe?  It's their back yard you say?  Well, look at the map.  Taking Ukraine gives Russia greater access to the Black Sea.  That's why this all started with Crimea.  It gives Russia access to threaten Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Moldova.  Russia has shown itself to have no problem threatening neighbors to get what it wants.  What Pooter wants is more power and expansion. 

But NATO you say?  But what interest does the United States have in Finland or Lithuania?  If Ukraine is not important to the United States, then surely Lithuania and Estonia are not either.  I don't know how many billions of dollars the Lithuanians give us, but it's probably even smaller than what the Ukrainians give us. 

NATO serves a purpose.  It is an extension of the foreign policy of the United States and our interests.  NATO is the result of our interests, it is not the interest itself.  One is the servant, the other the master.  The treaty is not the master.  The interest is.  If the United States has an interest in Lithuania and Poland, it obviously has an interest in Ukraine.  Every country that we abandon as being unimportant weakens the alliance as a whole.  The weaker the alliance, the easier time an opponent has to exploit these fault lines.  This doesn't just go with NATO and Russia.  It applies to China as well. 

The trade that Ukraine has, while completely unimportant to the United States in comparison to it's trade with Taiwan it seems, is very important to other countries.  Ukraine feeds China, Holland, Egypt, Spain, and several countries in Africa.  The loss of Ukraine's exports means the price of food rises in the global market.  This reverberates around the entire market.  This means that people in Texas might be paying more for Doritos.  I remember the uproar, in this very forum, when apparently global warming was causing the cost of corn to rise, meaning poor people in the United States would not be able to afford as much and be hungry.  Apparently it is not good for global warming to raise the price of food, but it is okay for Russia to do it.  Does the United States not have an interest in keeping food prices down and maintaining global trade, regardless of how much it effects GDP? 

It has already become apparent the results of the support the United States has given Ukraine.  NATO has been strengthened.  China is wary and intel says that China has postponed any invasion for at least 2 years.  Europe seems to have woken from it's malaise concerning the threat from Russia.  It would certainly have been much better had Europe never fallen asleep in the first place.   It would certainly have been much better for Ukraine, Europe, the United States, and the entire world, had war been deterred in the first place. 

21
I am suspecting Taiwan is going to be visited by the PRC's military next month, but the lack of reporting on a military buildup on the Chinese coast is somewhat reassuring that I am being paranoid.

Hmmm.  I'm not hearing anything.  I know they have had a big military build-up.  I know that looks similar to what Russia was doing at the end of of last year.  The difference is that US Intelligence had the skinny that Pooter was going to invade the rest of Ukraine.  We have assets inside Russia or have the means of reading their mail.  Uncle Joe tried to head off the invasion by exposing the plan, but not enough people really believed it was going to happen, including the Ukrainians and the Germans and the French.  Plus plenty of people in the US. 

If Uncle Joe were to maintain the same strategy, which seems to have worked in some ways (did not prevent an invasion, but the US and the IC was for once in a position to say "I told you so", and make the US look smarter), then the NSC would probably release info if China were in fact planning an invasion. 

I don't know if the US has the same penetration of China that it does Russia.  I don't tend to believe that just because we have agents in one country that we have the same level of visibility in another.  Or that our ELINT abilities necessarily cross over. 

BUT, an actual invasion of Taiwan would probably take a month to prep, and would have some real clear identifiers.  Troop movement, etc. 

Though the error trap that was fallen into with Ukraine was expecting Russia to fight like the United States would, particularly in the first week.  They didn't.  They did not have the plan or they did not have the ability to do the same things the United States can do militarily.  They have been stuck since then and been losing, though they havn't lost yet. 

The error trap as applied to China would be that China would not launch an invasion or an attack without having the forces in place to give them the best chance of winning in a war against Taiwan.  It's always possible that they go off half-cocked or attempt a surprise attack.  I've always believed that this was the most likely scenario in Korea. 

The flip side is that I'm not sure if the factors that led to Pooter making such a bad call in invading Ukraine applies to China.  Pooter was most likely being lied to by his security services about the likelihood of Ukrainian resistance.  Lied to by his own army and air force on their capabilities and readiness.  Then the final misjudgment was made on what NATO, particularly the Germans, Brits, and Americans would do.  It was a trifecta of "oops, got that one wrong". 

I don't know if Poohbear has the same level of psychophants and corruption going on in China as there was in Russia.  It's more than possible that Pooh has enough people telling him that war with Taiwan now is a bad idea.  That even if China won, it would be disasterous for the country. 

Part of this is honestly the reaction of Uncle Joe and Petunia.  They've pretty much broken the mold when it comes to strategic ambiguity.  Pretty much stating that the US would assist Taiwan in case of a war.  The Chinese just don't want that.  It's too much of a gamble I think.  Add to this that Cocaine Mitch has enough sway over the old guard to support Uncle Joe on Ukraine and Taiwan, despite the rise of MAGA. 

I believe that China would rather wait for 2025, and hope for a MAGA President or a new Democrat that doesn't give a *censored* about Taiwan.  There are plenty of people in the United States who would support such a move as abandoning Taiwan.  After all, we "don't have a treaty with them".  We are "not obligated".  Etc.  China always likes to think of time as being on their side.  They just need to wait for the right President that reflects the right people in the United States that would just as soon say "F Taiwan", the same way they said "F Ukraine" back in December and January.  Before it became popular to support Ukraine because MAGA was pro-Russian. 

22
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: September 16, 2022, 02:27:33 PM »
Oh, great.  Just what we needed.  Something to add to the warming we're getting from the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. Like it wasn't bad enough beforehand. :(

None of this is going to matter after Musk puts a giant sunshade up at L1 in 2045. 

23
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 16, 2022, 01:40:34 PM »
What little I have read did seem to indicate that he was vehemently against having political parties in the first place, believing they would be the demise of democracy, but that others (like Hamilton I think?) cautioned him that he was living in a dream land if he thought he could avoid joining or forming a party. And he eventually relented. Maybe this point isn't so clear historically and I was reading a decided opinion of one scholar.

Meh.  Everybody was against factionalism and partisanship in 1780.  That was before Jefferson and Hamilton had to be on the same cabinet together for Washington.  Even up to 1790 it was rather clean.  This was the founders cutting off the anti-federalists, who for the most part quietly went to their graves. (except for Monroe and George Clinton [the politician, not the grandmaster of funk]). 

As for the Founders, they were against factionalism, but they saw it as a natural outgrowth.  Almost inevitable.  The key writings are Federalist 9 & 10.  If Federalist 10 is the most famous paper, 9 is probably not far behind it.  Written by BOTH Hamilton and Madison respectively.  The key here is that the Constitution was constructed to control factionalism and party politics.  Both Hamilton and Madison were realists in this sense.  They both saw, and so did Jefferson I'm sure, that trying to control the causes of partisanship and factionalism were closer to tyranny than otherwise. 

It was the Jeffersonians who left the administration first, and began forming a political party.  Whatever the founders thought of political parties in 1790, it was out the door by 1796.  Led by Jefferson and Hamilton, the first party system in the United States was born.  But it was Jefferson who created a party first.  Hamilton's party naturally formed as a result of Jefferson's party. 


24
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 16, 2022, 12:27:02 PM »
"Entry to the Queue has resumed.  Expected queuing time is over 24 hours.  Overnight temperatures will be cold." 

It is now 5pm in London.  Depending on who you ask, the weekend has begun.  Overnight temperatures will drop to 45 deg F.  9% chance of rain tomorrow. 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1669439/Queen-tracker-live-lying-in-state-queue-time-find-end-westminster-hall

Quote
Frustration has erupted among mourners, as the queue to see the Queen Lying-In-State has been closed for at least six hours and until the number of queuers is greatly reduced. Lionel Gilmartin, 64, and his wife Kaaron left their Manchester home at 7.30am to pay their respects to the Queen. The couple said they will ignore the official government announcement of the queue closure “until it comes from the horse’s mouth”. Lionel, told the Telegraph that the queuing system was a “complete shambles”. Hundreds of thousands of people have flocked to the capital to see the Queen's coffin in Westminster Hall and people from across the UK and the world have been queueing from as early as Monday to get in line on Albert Embankment.

Quote
Ambulance teams have treated 435 members of the public along the route of the queue to see the Queen's coffin since it opened at 5pm on Thursday.
The London Ambulance Service said some 291 people along the route of the queue and nearby in London were given medical assistance on Wednesday, with 17 needing hospital treatment.
A further 144 people were treated on Thursday, with 25 people being taken to hospital.
The majority of incidents attended were faints and collapses, resulting in head injuries.

Better than Mardi Gras. 

Individuals now risking their lives in the queue include David Beckham and the Prime Minister of New Zealand. 

I'm going to double down on the concept that if the Brits can make medals for coronations (they do), they should be making medals for this funeral and be handing them out to everyone who makes it out of Westminster. 

25
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 16, 2022, 10:21:10 AM »
My was in the pep band while she was in school, and you know the chant where the spell out the name of school? Like "Give me an O. Give  me an H. Give me an I. Give me an O. What does that spell?  OHIO.

Well they did that but did "The College of William and Mary, Chartered in 1693". Took them the whole half time to do it.

Spelling isn't allowed in SEC schools.  It doesn't help win football games. 

26
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 16, 2022, 10:19:02 AM »
"The queue is at capacity and entry is currently paused.  Please do not attempt to join until it resumes". 

Guess it is up to 6 or so miles, looking at the map? 

They're no longer just letting the lines be single file at the climax.  Each line is now three wide. 

It is now 3pm in London.  The weekend is approaching. 

The modern record for attendance at a funeral in Europe is Pope John Paul II in 2005, at 4 million people.  The Ayatollah Khomeini had approximately 10 million show up in 1989. 

If even 1 million attends the funeral of QEII, it would be 1.5% of the entire population of the United Kingdom.  Equivalent to 5 million people in the United States.

27
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 16, 2022, 09:59:18 AM »
Just and FYI, Jefferson did found UVA.  My wife graduated from William and Mary and when UVA people like to boast that Jefferson founded their school W&M  people just tell them that Jefferson was a graduate of W&M, class of 1764.

I mean, neither one is an SEC school, so not sure what they are bragging about.   ;) lol

28
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 16, 2022, 09:49:39 AM »
But if he didn't mean that then he should have, since it's obviously more of a long-term danger than fools trying to take up arms against the Federal government.

I dunno.  I see no evidence that any oligarchs have outsized political power in the United States.  I know that is a controversial position.  But in my mind, if Bill Gates or George Soros or Elon Musk wanted to control the government or already did, things would look and feel much differently.  It would look more like China, Russia, or Saudi than the United States.

Fools taking arms against the government usually isn't a big deal.  But every once in awhile a perfect storm of factors leads to something serious. Add in a few more factors and suddenly the government is gone. 


29
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 16, 2022, 09:34:48 AM »
I am really not well read on the thoughts of the founders and their printed material on the matter (a matter I hope to correct someday), but I have to believe they weren't naive enough to think that "legitimately" elected governments would always de facto be the preferred method of rule of law. There's Jefferson's quote about periodic blood in the streets, and I don't think he meant it regarding rando rebels. I think he was thinking more of entrenched oligarchs acting on their own behalf at the expense of the country - but like I said I'm not as well-versed as I'd like to be. But if he didn't mean that then he should have, since it's obviously more of a long-term danger than fools trying to take up arms against the Federal government.

I would suggest The Federalist Papers first. It's the subject matter from some of the chief architects.  It's true it doesn't cover the entire matter but it should be the foundation.  The latest edition by Penguin Classics has a pretty good forward.  If you don't feel like going through the entire process of reading that much, there is a spectacular video series put out by The Great Courses, called "America's Founding Fathers".  It lays out the background much better than just reading The Federalist.  It consists of 36 30 minute Lectures.  I'm unsure if reading the book wouldn't just be faster, but it is good.  You can stream it with a subscription to Wonderium I think.  Both of them together is a complete course. 

Jefferson is a unique individual among the Founders.  He probably popped up in the only place and only time in history where he would become a great man.  And he was a great man, depending on your definition.  But he was primarily a writer/ideas guy.  He wasn't really an architect.  He was a bit emotional and withdrawn.  He had a very powerful relationship with his wife, and after his death of course he turned to one of his slaves as a mistress. 

When it comes to tyranny, Jefferson had a habit of seeing it everywhere.  He believed John Adams was a tyrant.  He was certain that Hamilton would become one.  Nevertheless, he never advocated armed rebellion.  He helped build the modern partisan/faction system of American politics.  He destroyed Adams and Hamilton politically.  He became President and in many ways kept some of the policies that Adams and Hamilton devised.  He was a bit of a sensitive soul who didn't trust other people easily unless they were "his" people and he was clearly in charge. 

Jefferson was outside of the great debate over the Constitution.  He was in France at the time, so his proxy, Madison, basically spoke for him.  It's all as well, since I'm unsure Jefferson would have been 100% behind the Constitution, given the lack of the Bill of Rights.  His opposition would have probably turned the tide towards the faction of Patrick Henry in Virginia, and our history would be very different.  But as it was, Madison did not share the same level of paranoia and distrust that Jefferson did, and he was the chief architect anyways.  Note that when it comes to the Constitution, the main body on government came first.  All about bearings arms came afterwards.  That's why it is called an "amendment". 

I don't think Jefferson was worried about "entrenched oligarchs".  If anyone in 1800 was an "entrenched oligarch", it was Jefferson and his buddies in Virginia like Madison.  They were highly concerned about upstart mercantilists in New England and New York, not each other. 

Funny thing about Jefferson.  He was a nerd at heart.  Like I said before, he came upon the stage at exactly the right time.  He founded the University of Virginia, I believe.  When his students, who studied him as their hero, began to practice as he preached, things started getting ugly. 

Jefferson allowed the University to have a "Drill Team".  Kinda like ROTC before it's time.  When the drill team started calling the new University President a tyrant, and rioted for two days.  While armed.  The armed students insisting that the University faculty could not dictate terms to them.  Davis, the University President, believed that 90% of the students neither understood the law or the facts surrounding the case, which dealt with the University prohibiting the students from drilling with weapons on the University grounds without University permission.  LOL. 

The students rioted, burnt the lawn, destroyed University property.  All that good freedom loving stuff.  The faculty had to arm themselves to protect themselves and their families. 

In 1825, the rioting and practice of shooting pistols into the air, and vandalism, had become so bad during the first seven months after the University was opened, that Jefferson had to call all the students together for "chastisement" after the first riot by the students.  The professors were threatening to quit.   Jefferson, the student's hero, of the tree of liberty watered by blood, was so overcome by his disappointment and disillusionment, that he just broke down crying. 

So there is Jefferson for you.  He honestly never understood people and was only comfortable in a position of power and authority.  I'm sure everyone has met people like that.  This is not to say that Jefferson was not a brilliant writer and believer in the freedoms and rights of mankind.  He was a pretty good President.  But not all of his concepts were made of gold.  That goes with probably all of the Founders. 

30
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 15, 2022, 10:41:37 PM »
It's 3:26 in the morning in London.  The Queue is still 4.9 miles long. Time is "at least" 11.5 hours. 

An individual getting into Westminster now has been in the queue since around noon yesterday. 

31
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 15, 2022, 10:14:04 PM »
It was to stop any tyrant, whether they be domestic or foreign.  You can't even make a rationale claim that the founders had a problem with foreign tyrants but would have been perfectly content with a local one.

Ehhh.  The Constitution as a WHOLE was meant to stop domestic tyrants.  The 2nd Amendment would have been seen as, like, the last ditch effort against domestic tyranny.  Everything else would have to fail first. 

So when it comes to domestic tyranny, it would most likely be some form of illegal and unconstitutional criminal government, or a mob or rebellious faction.  Like the Jan 6 rioters, operating outside the Constitution, that would be seen as a domestic enemy.  Not the actual constitutionally formed federal or state governments or their police forces or militaries.  For the founders, it would have been something like Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. 

The entire Constitution was built around several basic concepts, but foremost were the ideas of controlling tyranny and factionalism, through the construction of a government.  Not by arming citizens  ::)  The idea was to combat tyranny through checks and balances and the separation of powers.  The way to combat tyranny wasn't with armed mobs, but with laws, and the rule of law.  The way to combat domestic tyranny was with things like impeachment and the courts system.  Not using an AR-15. 


32
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 15, 2022, 05:12:47 PM »
Now 4.9 miles.  9 hour wait time.  Leads me to believe they're not getting a mile done every hour, but about every 2 hours. 

Ten o'clock at night there.  Good luck, Britons.  Thoughts and prayers.  Some real troopers. 

Apparently "officials" are expecting 750,000 people.  More than three times estimated by my back of the envelope math. 

I gotta say, the one thing I am happy to see is nobody trying to take a selfie. 

The grief is less evident today compared to yesterday, replaced with a kind of weariness and relief they have made it to the end. 

 

33
General Comments / Re: Trump looses again
« on: September 15, 2022, 12:55:26 PM »
Meadows has turned over documents to the DOJ.

Meh.  The story linked said he had already turned the same documents over to the Jan 6 committee, and has not turned over any documents he believes are subject to executive privilege. Call me underwhelmed.   I know people are already screaming "Meadows has turned on T*&%^", but it's nothing new really. 

34
Pooter travelling to Uzbekistan to meet with Pooh.   

Quote
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday said he understood that Xi Jinping had questions and concerns about the situation in Ukraine but praised China's leader for what he said was a "balanced" position on the conflict.

Translation:

Pooh:  You said this *censored* would be over in three days!  It's been seven months!  You're actually taking weapons AWAY from our puppets in Iran and North Korea and Syria!  You're setting back the plan YEARS!  You're *censored*ing up the world economy!  What is your plan?  Win or get out!

Pooter:  Please, gawd, don't abandon me! 

Pooh:  You're an embarrassment!  You're giving evil organizations a bad name.  And the Yankees are getting hard-ons now for Taiwan. 

35
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 15, 2022, 08:07:37 AM »
It's probably too late for this now but maybe for next time you go by the take a number system and you can watch online or on tv to see what number is up and what your expected wait time is. If you want to save paper maybe have an option to get your number on the app and you just show it on your phone when you're getting close. I suppose that defeats the purpose of showing the proper respect. Well at least it's not as bad as Shaka Zulu's mom's funeral.

The queue is now 4.2 miles long.  I have been reliably informed, several times, that nobody can queue like the British can.  So I will not presume to instruct them on their national past-time. 

Quote
The trick to not passing out is make sure you don't lock your knees.

Yes.  But the real culprit here is the Monarchy.  :P Despite the fact that probably more people have passed out at American military Change of Command or Graduation ceremonies. 

Quote
I paid my respects privately with a prayer for her soul up in heaven, condolences to her family, and best wishes to her country and the good people of her empire.

Minor quibble here, Cherry.  But I think they call it a "Commonwealth" now instead of "Empire".  People are already riled up enough blaming QEII for colonization and being part of the system.  Though maybe that is your goal.  To get them riled up.  I'd rather not. 

36
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 14, 2022, 08:29:16 PM »
Dangit!  I missed the first guard passing out!  Right during changing the guard.  He only had to hang on another 2 minutes and he would have made it. 

37
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 14, 2022, 08:04:56 PM »
Imagine waiting 7 hours to cast a ballot every 2-4 years.

We all think that you are very pretty too, sweetie. 

38
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 14, 2022, 04:50:01 PM »
So about 4,000 people in line? That doesn't seem like a lot, relatively speaking.

My social media is very anti-monarchist so I don't know how many Britons are actively engaged with mourning versus pageantry enacted by the government for their own legitimacy.

Well, if they are able to get 1600 through every hour, and they are running round the clock, until sometime on Monday, they will run a bit less than 200,000 people through.  I guess that's really not a lot, but it's more than will be at my funeral so I don't think I could think of it as small. 

I'm watching this thing on youtube non-stop.  It's captivating.  Just watching these people's faces and how they do different things.  Different bows.  Some Catholics make the sign of the cross.  Some woman brought her disabled daughter in a wheelchair.  Some cry afterwards. 

It's the MOST REAL thing I've seen so far.  Everything else was pageantry, which I can get understand.  But it's rare to see so much televised respect and grief.  All walks of life.  All races.  It's captivating. 

I mean, it's one thing to stand in line for 2-3 hours for your 5 seconds.  That's crazy enough.  But just watching these people's faces. 

39
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 14, 2022, 03:46:51 PM »
So at 1 person per meter, with the line split in two getting into Westminster, with each person getting 5 seconds to bow/curtsie/salute, you can get through 1 mile a people an hour and 7 minutes. 

IF they weren't changing the guard every 20 minutes and halting everybody. 

40
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 14, 2022, 03:29:15 PM »
Watching the video feed from inside Westminister Hall.  Kinda disappointed that some of the people of London/Britain can't find something black to wear for their deceased monarch.  I've seen better dress at a funeral in South Mississippi. 

This changing the guard thing is slowing down the queue.  UK needs to invest in robot/android guardbots.  Talk to Musk. 

Imagine waiting 13 plus hours to walk by somebody's coffin, draped in a flag with a crown and wreath on it.  If I didn't do that for Carrie Fisher, I just don't think I could do that for anybody.  Maybe Catherine Bach or Erin Grey.  But they're both still alive.

41
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 14, 2022, 02:53:36 PM »
There is a saying that queuing is a British past-time.  Well they seem to be determined to prove the point.  The queue for observing the late Queen lying in state is now 2.6 mi long.  It will probably get longer.  It will be "paused" (what does that mean?) if it reaches 10 miles in length.  Easily up to 12 hours wait in line.  Bathrooms set up.  Can't really find how fast the line is moving.  But assuming it is moving between 0.1 and 0.3 mph, you're looking at 13 hour wait.  Better than Space Mountain.  With a maximum wait time of around 50 hours if the queue gets to 10 miles.  If it gets to that length, there should be some kind of medal or British honour set up for those who survive. 

42
LOL.  Funny aside.

Yvegeny Prigozhin, the controller of Wagner Group, the Russian mercenaries fighting in Syria and acting as irregulars in Ukraine, is seen in a video recruiting in a Russian prison.  He says they don't usually recruit sex offenders, but they understand that sometimes people make mistakes.  LOL.  I guess they are running out of Vatniks to find in Samara Oblast.

Shouldn't be surprised.  LOL.  The guy spent 9 years in a St Petersburg prison for robbery. 

You look him up on Google and it gives his occupation as "Russian Chef".  LOL.  Because he owned some restaurants  .  Not "Russian Oligarch", or "FBI's Most Wanted". 

43
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 14, 2022, 01:40:48 PM »
Grant

Remember to keep it to the OT.  Many of the hard core conservatives here like that part of the Bible much better than the NT, especially the part with Jesus in it and all of that forgiveness and tolerance for others.

I plan to just keep to Mark 11:14, and skip over Mark 11:25. 

Nevertheless, I would hate for the OT to have a completely bad rep.  God apparently forgave the Jews over and over again, often after many of them were killed or scattered to the four winds, and Joseph forgave his brothers, and Esau forgave Jacob. 

44
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 14, 2022, 11:33:42 AM »
For every text message I receive RNC, I'm going to send you another one.

I warned you, RNC.  But you seem intent on effing around and finding out. 

"The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish."
Deuteronomy 28:22


45
General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 14, 2022, 07:47:49 AM »
From what I can tell Trump has not claimed that he has declassified all of these documents in any of his legal briefs.  I wonder why not.

Probably because the lawyers know there is no documented proof anywhere that he did so, and that actual courts don't believe in waving a wand over classified documents and saying "exclassificamous" works, unlike some individuals in the court of public opinion who will believe anything from the Pumpkin Revolution. 

46
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 13, 2022, 06:59:10 PM »
I realize this is going in a different direction than vaccine paranoia, but to the extent that people are worried about being tracked via implants, they probably should be.

These the same people who are on truth social all day long on their iphones?  I got bad news for them. 

47
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 13, 2022, 06:55:33 PM »
Has it really been a month since the last nutbag post? It's not for lack of options. Here's a great one, Bolduc is running for Senate in NH.

What is with NH?  Have you seen the crap the Libertarian Party of NH comes up with?  It's grade A douchbaggery.  Trade for Alberta. 

48
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 13, 2022, 06:53:05 PM »
I nominate whichever of you perverse children of worthless idols in this world, whether they are GOP or not, who gave my cell phone number to the RNC.  Every hour is another text message of some R politician who desperately needs my $$$.  I've got something here for you.  It's not $$$.   It is borrowed, but it is not new or blue.  Here it is:

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay.
In due time their foot will slip;
their day of disaster is near
and their doom rushes upon them." 

Deuteronomy 32:35

For every text message I receive RNC, I'm going to send you another one. 

49
Fallout from the Ukrainian gains?

My understanding is that these are many of the same people who have been against the war from the jump.  Mostly in St Petersburg. 

I can't confirm this yet.  It seems discontent is indeed growing in Russia.  Some people are actually speaking against Pooter on national television now.  It's usually just 1 guy against 3 or 4, but it's startling when they are saying on the state run tv channel that Russia cannot win in Ukraine without general mobilization and should end the war. 

But yes.  I would have to say this is the direct result of the gains in Ukraine and the rumors that are flying everywhere.  Generals relieved or captured.  Russian generals committing suicide when they see the equipment they are now being given.  Whole battalions or brigades in negotiations to surrender around Kherson.  I don't know what to believe, but I know it's all bad for Russia.  Today was supposed to be a referenda in Luhansk and Kharkiv oblasts to leave Ukraine and join the Russian federation.  You can bet that was cancelled.  Pooter was supposed to meet with some Generals.  That was cancelled and supposedly he's in his dacha somewhere out of Moscow. 

I'll be honest, I don't think that Russia will be able to hang on.  Their situation is *censored* right now in terms of logistics and morale.  I would not be surprised of the AR really did start to fall apart in Ukraine.  I read somewhere that there was a proclamation that no new units would be sent to Ukraine.  That's pretty much the only thing that could have saved the Russians.  Moving the last of their forces from the borders with Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and China.  The only question is how fast Ukraine can continue to put the pressure on the crumbling castle. 

The last time the AR collapsed like this was 1917.  It didn't really bode well.  I don't know if the people of Russia are going to want to turn back to communism, a form of socialism, or some kind of weird autocracy.  Honestly, I don't know of anyone in Russia that can mount a successful opposition.  The Germans had to ship Lenin and his boys in on a blacked out train in 1917.  Any kind of Russian opposition today would have to be expat. 

50
I wonder how Tucker Carlson and the others who supported Russia are going to spin this as good for Russia?

I don't know what he said about it last night.  I think he had Heather MacDonald on last night.    I do know that he had a doozy of a guest on Friday, Col (r) Douglas MacGregor.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlsons-ukraine-war-expert-totally-debunked-in-72-hours/

I'm not going to deep dive, but MacGregor basically said everything was going bad for the Ukrainians and they were about to lose.  Carlson then of course goes on a rant about how Uncle Joe provoked Pooter, and is only supporting Ukraine to hurt the United States.  Insert that stupid puzzled look that Tucker gets on his face when his guests are spewing nonsense. 

It's kinda sad though, really.  MacDonald was the Ops Officer that managed the Battle of 73 Easting.  The same battle that catapulted McMaster to Army stardom.  MacDonald was basically the guy who planned it and managed it.  Really a brilliant Armor officer.  I didn't always agree with his concepts of getting rid of the Division and Corps organizations in the Army, and reverting to a regimental system, but in hindsight he may have had a point or two.  But the guy was just never good with people and it just got worse.  Finally he fell down the MAGA cult hole and here we are.  It's just sad.  The way Lord Tinyhands has destroyed so many people. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25