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 - TheDeamon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 103
1
General Comments / Re: Joke, not a joke
« on: September 24, 2022, 08:28:18 PM »
The issue isn't the jokester - but the logic behind the law. A University official said: "...Utah law doesn’t distinguish between jokes or terroristic threats that are not attempted or not possible. Just don’t do it: Don’t post a threat on social media. We have a zero-tolerance policy for these kinds of threats,” said Chief Jason Hinojosa. “In the age that we’re living in, we have to take every threat seriously.”

What law says a joke must be found criminal, regardless of whether it was or not? Shouldn't the law be about the intent, and whether harm was done? Growing up, there were kids who pulled fire alarms in school to get out of tests. That was criminal. Threatening to do something is wrong if it causes fear or problems for anyone. Judging non-threatening threats as criminal seem to cause more problems than the joke. There is nothing wrong with shaming someone who causes problems on purpose - but promoting cancel-culture is worse than most problems they claim to be concerned about.

By the way, policy is not part of the criminal justice code. Policy is only something designed for the benefit of the policy-maker.

The police chief doesn't prosecute the crime. That's on the county prosecutor's office if the charge is criminal. All they can do is refer it to the county for further action. And this would be an instance where "prosecutorial discretion" is applicable. Also possible they could downgrade the charge before sending it to court, or make a plea deal, again for a lesser offense, where some community service might be involved.

2
General Comments / Re: Joke, not a joke
« on: September 24, 2022, 03:20:23 PM »
If a threat is impossible, then I'm sure its going to be different. I don't see that the student has been charged with anything as of yet. Just arrested. I mean this is far out there as opposed to "I'm going to stab the quarterback."

"I'm going to blow up the cold fusion lab, I swear!"

Well, while varying definitions of "detonate" apply, there is record of an incident involving a nuclear reactor failure in Idaho that investigators believe may have been the result of a love triangle involving two of the men operating the reactor at the time it went critical and generated a steam explosion with sufficient force that all of the men inside the reactor containment area were dead within either moments, or hours depending on where they were in the room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

3
General Comments / Re: Joke, not a joke
« on: September 24, 2022, 03:16:27 PM »
For instance if the message had been "If we don't win today, I'll have to go ahead and detonate the sun" would a person be arrested for that?

 8)

Technically, the sun is an ongoing fusion detonation that is both constrained and sustained by the force of gravity due to its huge mass.  ;D

4
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 24, 2022, 03:11:01 PM »
Do you have evidence that they weren't worried about foreign invasion? It seems reasonable for them to be concerned that the British might try and get their colony back. Or that other colonial powers would try and take advantage of poorly defended real estate.

The War of 1812 showed the British could invade if they chose, so it was more historical accident that the US was mostly left alone rather than being attacked.

They were concerned to a degree, but I think both they, and those same foreign powers realized that subjugation of the United States was not viable with the technical capabilities that existed at the time. The advent of the Railroad and telegraph made it that much worse for an invader.

The reality the British faced during the Revolutionary War was that the American Colonies were already too large in terms of both area and population for them to viable occupy. Emphasis on the term "viably" in this case. The economics of the situation simply made it not worth doing. As their attack on Washington DC demonstrated in the War of 1812(and various other locations during the Revolutionary War), they could exercise supremacy over part of the United States at any given time, but they would require a much larger, and far more expensive force, to be able to hold most of it, never mind attempting to hold all of it.

The colonies simply were not that valuable to them in the short/medium term, and their treasury couldn't support such an undertaking in any case. The war of 1812 proved the Americans were tenacious enough to look after their own interests, even if their performance against the British was rather lackluster, the Brits weren't concerned about that part. They were more concerned about other powers(France) being able take over. The war of 1812 set that aside. If the Brits couldn't pull it off with control of Canada giving them a land border, in addition to other Caribbean and Atlantic claims the Royal Navy could stage from, France and every other European power had no chance.

It was more economical for the UK to foster strong, long-term diplomatic and trade ties with the United States and let the Americans have to concern themselves with their own defense. Rather than make the crown have to both worry about "keeping the Americans in their place" and worry about defending them at the same time. Through trade they could get everything they would have obtained through the colonial control in any case, and they didn't need to worry about most of the other overhead. Yes, it was mildly annoying that they weren't "locked in" to trade with the Empire, but still, a lower cost option with better returns than the alternatives available.

5
General Comments / Re: More incitement?
« on: September 21, 2022, 09:43:59 PM »
Well, I never was a Republican even if I identify as Conservative. Have not voted in a Republican Primary election since they decided to require party registration to do so in my state starting in 2012. More power to them, it's meant more 3rd party votes for me in the General Election because they keep selecting poorly in the primary.

6
Taiwan needs lots of man portable anti-aircraft and anti-drone systems. The longer they can keep PLA helicopters and troop transports from air dropping troops, the better.

Beyond that, they need anti-shipping sea mines and systems that can be remote deployed from range for when China seeks to clear a sea lane. The longer they can keep transport craft and ships from making it to shore safely, the better.

Beyond that, machine guns and heavy anti-armor weaponry to make beach assaults as expensive as possible.

Anti Missile systems are nice in theory, but until the laser based systems are much improved, they can only do so much in the face of the PLA.... And Taiwan wouldn't be getting those in any case due to concerns about either espionage, or capture in the event China does invade. Nothing gets sent to Taiwan by the US that the US doesn't feel it is ready to "deal with" should the PLA try to use it against the US should they capture it.

7
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 20, 2022, 11:49:18 PM »
At a guess, foot patrols tend to accomplish two primary things.
1) It establishes physical presence in a more tangible way than just watching a Cruiser roll through at just below the speed limit. Walking patrols are going to move even slower, and being outside of the Cruiser, will "experience more" of the environment around them.

2) Getting out of the Cruiser and "walking a beat" gives the officer a chance to interact with the community in a non-confrontational context, and allows them to build relationships/contacts which can help prevent smaller problems from becoming larger problems which will turn up in a police report.

From my own force protection training back in the day, #1 is widely held to. DOD fully supports and endorses "security theater" in many cases. It works, they know from interviews of both criminals, spies, and terrorists that all three groups favor the "soft targets" and generally aren't going to bother to test to see if the security present is a bluff, or actually has teeth. The rent-a-cop doesn't seriously scare anyone who knows better, but he's still plenty effective at getting the more nefarious to look at other options instead. Basically the Police Foot Patrol is filling that role.

As to the validity of crime statistics, that can be wildly variable depending on the reporting agency. Or just who is working on the reporting within said agency. Have a sister who works in dispatch. For (small) her agency, and most in her area(even the large agencies), the dispatchers are the ones who are responsible for "coding" the police calls/activity in the region for the big FBI database that many like to use. However, the larger agencies typically have a team dedicated solely to the purpose of reviewing calls/reports and checking for/adding any relevant codes to that database as near full time jobs

Long story short, being a smaller agency, that was an "additional duty" for one of their dispatchers, and the person doing it didn’t fully understand what they were doing. That person gets replaced and they go back through the logs for the year previous as they also start on the (then) current year's reporting. After they completed the review, the result was a more than 200% increase in "reportable criminal activities" even  though the number of incidents didn't actually go up. Just the number of categories applied to each incident went up. While previously they were only logging one per incident, now they log every category that applies.

It was kind of comical to know what really happened as the local news was going nuts over the "surge in local crime."

8
General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 18, 2022, 02:13:42 PM »
The rest have been bought off by The Soros/Gates cartel. It is just proof of how deep the swamp is. All the more reason for Trump to get reelected so he can clean the swamp up even more.

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.

9
General Comments / Re: More incitement?
« on: September 17, 2022, 08:23:45 PM »
Quote
Why couldn't they slow walk it and go "full court press" on the matter after the election was over?
Trump would very much like everyone to move very slowly, so the House has a chance to change hands.

Still becomes a matter of why this wasn't being pushed harder, much earlier on then. Blaming the courts only goes so far, they can make arguments about the need to expedite it to avoid the appearance of what is now going on.

They're interfering in the election process in a manner which in theory should work to benefit the Democrats almost exclusively, at least if they gambled correctly. Enough people aren't going to like the optics that they're in a damned if they, damned if they don't scenario now. There is going to be blowback experienced by the Democrats from this come November.

10
General Comments / Re: More incitement?
« on: September 17, 2022, 06:56:33 PM »
As I bother to go further on that link:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/

This time Nancy Pelosi in June of 2018 responding to Paul Ryan suggesting passing legislation to change the Child Separation policy.
Quote
"This is an act of the administration. They have been planning this for a while," Pelosi said, according to a video provided by C-SPAN.

Near the end of a lengthy response, Pelosi expressed surprise that there weren't uprisings in the street.

"When we had a had a hearing on a subject related to this asylum seeker, refugees, etc., the (National) Association of Evangelicals testified that refugees and asylum ... they called it the crown jewel of America's humanitarianism," she said. "And in order to do away with that crown jewel, they're doing away with children being with their moms.

"This is ... I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be," Pelosi continued.

And this could become particularly relevent if the office of the Attorney General decides to "October Surprise" Trump with formal charges just before the November election day arrives.

I think they'll instead pay lipservice instead and try to "not-so-slow build" their case until after the election, then either quietly drop it, or press charges after.

But right now all the very high profile investigatory activity happening right now stinks to high heaven. They sat on this for over a year and now they decide to push on it? Just before an election? Why couldn't they slow walk it and go "full court press" on the matter after the election was over?

11
General Comments / Re: More incitement?
« on: September 17, 2022, 06:25:58 PM »
But let's be realistic here. We're all familiar with Anti-Fa and their modus operandi and stated mission objective where it concerns "fascists" which they happen to define as anyone who supported Trump in 2020. Never mind the whack-jobs who still do.

Do you honestly think that if widespread pro-Trump protests break out across the country, the Anti-Fa isn't going to do everything they can to turn them violent? Presto, "riots in the streets."

And before someone wants to quip that the pro-Trump people shouldn't be taking to the streets then if they know a riot is likely to result.

MLK might have some words to say to you about that. Remember many his peaceful protests were declared riots and dispersed, sometime turning into low-scale ones as people tried to defend themselves from police. Only this time it won't be police(at the onset), it'll be Anti-Fa with their red hammer and sickle on proud display.

And just think, Biden recently gave a creepy speech intended to call those same Trump supporters enemies of America. Nothing bad could possibly come from Anti-Fa and those adjacent to it as a result of that.

12
General Comments / Re: More incitement?
« on: September 17, 2022, 06:11:05 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.

Look back in 2020, plenty of quotes from Democrats that could easily be construed as "cheering on the rioters" while that was going on. More than a few memes were made to that effect as well, IIRC.

And while the meme's themselves seem to be out of context, the Kamala Harris one gets probably very close to what Graham was getting at.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/

Quote
The exchange between Harris and Colbert — which took place on June 17, a few weeks after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis — referred to protests, not riots. The word "riot" is not even mentioned in the 30-second exchange.

"I know there are protests still happening in major cities across the United States, I'm just not seeing the reporting on it that I had for the first few weeks," Colbert said.

"That's right," Harris replied. "But they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I'm telling you."

"They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop," she added. "They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day."

"Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not," she concluded.

Okay, she said protests, not riots.

But let's be realistic here. We're all familiar with Anti-Fa and their modus operandi and stated mission objective where it concerns "fascists" which they happen to define as anyone who supported Trump in 2020. Never mind the whack-jobs who still do.

Do you honestly think that if widespread pro-Trump protests break out across the country, the Anti-Fa isn't going to do everything they can to turn them violent? Presto, "riots in the streets."

13
It wasn't global warming causing that spike on the price of corn. But rather Ethanol subsidies which made it more profitable to turn it into fuel rather than use it as food. Because "we need ethanol to fight global warming."

14
@Grant, my understanding is that Pooh is evidently very isolated from many of the goings on within China. For example the Chinese ban on Aussie coal. It is alleged that the resulting wide spread power blackouts due to shortages of the right kind of coal for power generation(from Australia) didn’t get communicated to Xi until several months later because "nobody wanted to be the messenger." Although I'm getting that by way of Peter Zeihan, wherever he got it from, but given his connections to US government think tanks among other things....

So he may be worse than Putin in regards to being surrounded by yes men. He just hasn't provided grounds to believe he has become as paranoid/unhinged as Putin has.

The "problem" the US has in "crying wolf" on Taiwan regarding China is that the US has "an obvious dog in the hunt" on that matter. Loudly calling attention to it may escalate the situation rather than give it a chance to settle out.

In Ukraine the US interests were comparatively minor. While what side the US stood on was clear, it also wasn't much of a risk to the US itself if simply making the accusation did in fact escalate the situation.

I also am inclined to think our Intelligence penetration into the Communist Party is any near as good as we would like. As such, sounding the alarm may also pose greater risks in exposing people and/or methods/means of obtaining said information.

Russia relied on American and other foreign contractors to make several sectors of their economy function as well as they did. China on the other hand, in contrast, has been very aggressive in replacing foreign workers with their own as soon as they possibly can for decades. Further, China has been aggressively pushing policies over the past years to either outright force foreigners to leave, or otherwise "strongly incentivise" their doing so. Which again greatly limits in-person Intel options.

Also until comparatively recently, China's economy was "going gangbusters" which makes incentives to "turn" Chinese natives against their government far more challenging. Meanwhile, in Russia, their economy has been horrible for decades, which makes "flipping" people child's play by comparison. Both nations have cultural corruption issues that are present at all tiers, but the Russians are the prize winners. And where there is run away corruption, there is plenty of graft for spies to leverage.

The Communist Party knows an invasion of Taiwan is going to be very bloody(for them) if they make a serious  attempt. They also know that isn't going to play well in a society where the one child policy has been in place for as long as nearly all of those soldiers have been alive.(Senior leadership being the exceptions)

Which is part of why a "We tried" limp wristed attack on Taiwan may be on the menu. It makes "proportionate response" very difficult for both Taiwan and the United States. And the resulting economic sanctions they would likely suffer would potentially play well to their domestic population. It "proves" the Taiwanese are vile traitors to China.

It "proves" that "the imperial western powers" are still up to the same tricks they were with the 8 powers Alliance during the early 20th Century as they seek to "carve up China" starting with Taiwan. (Never mind the 8 Powers Alliance was a direct response to the Boxer Rebellion and the Chinese Emperor doing nothing to help protect the citizens of those nations; although I will admit the punitive expedition it turned into went too far)

People seem to have a hard time grasping the idea that in the modern era under the American Global Order, fighting a war you know you will lose has actually become a viable option. One that China might be willing to exercise. Because they know the Americans are likely to simply "roll the clock back" to when the fighting started, at least as it relates to the core territories of China.(The Chinese Mainland) And should the Americans sieze any other Chinese territorial claims in the process(like the atolls in the South China Sea), that just makes more propaganda fodder domestically to demonstrate the Americans remain "untrustworthy imperialists."

15
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.

Mainland China looks to be in a bad way, and they could definitely use a good distraction that calls on their people's "patriotic pride/duty" right about now... But maybe they're smart enough to realize that ship has likely sailed already.

Of course, flipside is if they're just seeking to "rally around the flag" they may only send a token force to attack Taiwan. In which case, no buildup needed, what is there is enough.

16
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: September 16, 2022, 02:58:33 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.

Well, on the flip side, once someone bothers to cruch the numbers (as they're available) that can convert that water vapor variance into a CO2 equivalence and tell us what CO2 level we were previewing.  8)

17
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: September 16, 2022, 02:48:37 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. :(

On the other hand we now have a "novel event" that has now occurred on the instrument record which makes it something of a "holy grail" for climate modelers to test their models against.

It will be interesting to see how many models don't need much rework in the next few years based on data collected related to this event.

18
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: September 15, 2022, 11:41:29 PM »
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62466990

Quote
Much of Europe is baking in record heat, which has exposed riverbeds and triggered restrictions on water use in many areas.

More evidence of climate change. Record heat and drought throughout Europe.

Alternate option, it's the Tonga Eruption from January and it will take about 5 years to sort out.

https://www.livescience.com/tonga-eruption-water-vapor

Quote
"We estimate that the excess water vapor is equivalent to around 10% of the amount of water vapor typically residing in the stratosphere," which is the biggest increase scientists have ever seen, researchers wrote in the new paper, published online July 1 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The water vapor may remain in the stratosphere for around half a decade, the researchers wrote.

Remember folks, water vapor is one of the most potent green house gases on Earth. We just don't typically worry about human generated water vapor as it generally remains in the lower layers of the atmosphere and returns to the surface in days/weeks, and rarely months.

19
General Comments / Re: London Bridge is Falling?
« on: September 15, 2022, 08:47:54 AM »
The trick to not passing out is make sure you don't lock your knees. That's what we learned in boot camp. A lot of people still passed out anyway though.

Sometimes the cause of their passing out isn't about having locked their knees, dehydration, stress, and other factors can combine together to take people down all the same. In that respect, "bending your knees" simply becomes their form of a stress ball to try to keep them together.

20
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 15, 2022, 08:45:10 AM »
What's really at issue is the average person (and Congressperson) isn't going to be up on the tech scene enough to be able to judge whether 'that time' has finally come where getting bio-tracking will be a legitimate concern. To them it's already that time. That may not be accurate, but the concern should probably be addressed in advance (it won't be).

RFID has been with us for a couple decades now. Amazon even setup a demonstration store using RFID to allow a customer to walk in(identified by RFID--presumably a phone or other more "passive" item responding to the active ping at the doorway. Then you go through the store, pickup what you want, and leave. It'll bill you for what you exit with automatically as each item was RFID tagged and scanned as you walked out the door.
I think this https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/we-test-the-worlds-first-amazon-go-watch-you-shop-grocery-store/ is what you are referring to and that isn't RFID it's a "conventional" login + a lot of cameras.

In some ways, that makes more sense in the context of what happens when you have multiple people enter/exit the sensor's range at the same time--it was doing the tracking visually. In many respects, I'd expect the RFID version to be a simpler implementation, and I'd still strongly suspect Amazon had it present as a fall back if nothing else.

21
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 14, 2022, 11:13:42 PM »
OOh, I saw this on the X-Files. Implanted transmitters. Holy hell, why would you ever need to do this? If you're close enough to scan someone with RFID, you're close enough for face recognition. Or you can 10,000 mules people with their cellphone data, it won't be very accurate, but you can do it. I'm surprised that no one has suggested an implanted voterID yet, immune to any falsification and gets buried with the voter when they die.

Cell phones and smart watches are much easier because they're also active transmitters and can store (some of) the data until able to transmit. But you can leave the celll phone behind, and not wear the smart watch. They can even be stolen or loaned out and generate misleading data as a result. Something like an RFID embedded in your body isn't likely to be misplaced, loaned out, or stolen(absent a surgical process you'd likely notice).

But yeah, there are other ways to achieve it that are far simpler than "covertly" installing RFID readers in random doorways to track who is entering or leaving buildings.

And for X-files fun, my favorite was the little strip of magnetic tape embedded in the larger denomination bills and the Lone Gunmen saying that too was a means of tracking people.  ;)

22
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 14, 2022, 07:15:39 PM »
What's really at issue is the average person (and Congressperson) isn't going to be up on the tech scene enough to be able to judge whether 'that time' has finally come where getting bio-tracking will be a legitimate concern. To them it's already that time. That may not be accurate, but the concern should probably be addressed in advance (it won't be).

RFID has been with us for a couple decades now. Amazon even setup a demonstration store using RFID to allow a customer to walk in(identified by RFID--presumably a phone or other more "passive" item responding to the active ping at the doorway. Then you go through the store, pickup what you want, and leave. It'll bill you for what you exit with automatically as each item was RFID tagged and scanned as you walked out the door.

The only question is exactly how small the RFID "chip" needs to be in order be read at any particular distance from a RFID type of scanner.

Basically if you have a RFID tag implanted in you, it can be completely passive(only providing your "unique identifier") as the power comes from the Scanner reading the reflected signal your "tag" sends back. It doesn't carry your bank balance information, your name, your medical data, or anything else. It just responds back with that "unique ID" which then pings a central database which then calls up the information relevant to that particular "scanner" being used.

This is something that has been possible for well over a decade now, although the early implementations would have required some advanced materials that wouldn't risk rejection from the human body and a RFID "patch" that was a couple inches across to each side as I recall, but less than a millimeter thick. From there, you just need the scanners and connecting them into a networked system to track everything.

23
General Comments / Re: GOP nutbag of the week
« on: September 14, 2022, 07:05:19 PM »
And, hell, here's the bigger and more important question: why the hell would George Soros or Bill Gates or the Democratic Party care where we are? Sure, geotracking data's handy for monetization, but it's not so handy that they'd spend billions to locate you without your knowledge. If this was something the government wanted to do, they'd just have a bunch of Republicans insist that it was the only way to ensure election security or keep out immigrants.

You're missing part of the puzzle. Where you are/were is only part of the puzzle.

It is about where were you in relation to somebody else? Did you spend any "significant" amount of time in the vicinity of somebody else "they" have on a watch list? How long were you nearby? Has it happened more than once? Even if it only happened once, have you been regularly found in the same places as other "first degree contacts" with the person they're particularly interested in? What about "Second degree contacts?"

It's about creating associations between people. And to make that happen, one of the best ways to do so is to know when and where you're making in person contact with others. (And possibly use other electronic means to address non-physical means of contact)

You can argue about how capable they are of pulling it off, but the methodology is centuries old at this point.

24
General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 13, 2022, 11:23:37 AM »
Protect the declassified evidence by doing absolutely nothing with it until the government got around to getting a search warrant? Which they could do very easily since Trump never got around to telling anyone that he'd declassified anything.

You need to apply Trump's logic to it. He won't trust any investigations during the Biden Admin, or under a Democrat controlled committee. Goal was to "hold the evidence" until the Republicans retook control of congress at the earliest. But because of his problems with what he calls RINOs, he likely would then try to wait until a Republican was in the oval office again to start that work. Where obviously the Republican in the White House should be him.

So yes, hold onto it until the Biden Admin could get a court to order the seizure of the documents in question.

25
General Comments / Re: Election Results
« on: September 06, 2022, 06:25:01 PM »
We aren't talking about what other states are doing.  Your claim is that California's re-districting is a shining example of Democratic run states trying to "get the politics out of redistricting and end gerrymandering" but unfortunately, just like in New York, having an 'Independent" commission does not guarantee a non partisan gerrymander.  In most cases it only provides a veil of political cover for those states trying to claim so.

There is an important distinction to be made when it comes there being a difference between "independent" and "non-partisan." They are not inherently synonyms even if people like to treat them as such.

26
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 06, 2022, 06:01:59 PM »
I would argue that the 2nd amendment was written so that local militias could be established that would play a role like the minute men did to bolster the armed forces in a conflict like the war for independence. I really don't see how people read that and come up with individuals should be armed to possibly overthrow the free state.

The Minutemen who fought the Battle of Lexington and Concord send their regards from 1776.

One thing you said doesn't mesh with the next thing you said.

27
General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 06, 2022, 05:59:53 PM »
Standing in the street with an AR-15 against the American military is a death sentence. If they want you dead you'll be hit with a drone strike before you get to fire a shot with your rifle.

If you're "standing in the street" openly brandishing a weapon in opposition to the American Government for all to see while it has US Military backing, you pretty much deserve a Darwin Award.

You seem to have a very poor conception about how most people with said guns would be going about conducting their armed rebellion.

Idiots are called idiots for a reason.

28
General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 01, 2022, 12:30:55 PM »
Well, the same executive order also handles declassification:

Quote
Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
(2) the originator’s current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.

I am pretty sure that PotUS qualifies as a "supervisory official" for anything classified under the aegis of the executive branch. And PotUS certainly does have "original classification authority" as per the order.

Of course, it also delineates a process they're supposed to follow(mostly as it relates to communicating with the National Archives).

However, as an aside, I find the idea of prosecuting a former president for violating an executive order, during their term of office no less, seems to be a bit... Awkward politically speaking.

29
General Comments / Re: The Trump Papers
« on: September 01, 2022, 12:03:06 PM »
Currently their is an Executive Order for classification and declassification, it could be overridden by a subsequent President, but until done so the EO is in effect.
Do you have a pointer to the text of that EO? It would add some actual facts to the current discussion about who can do what and when.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

Most relevant:
Quote
Sec. 1.3.  Classification Authority.  (a)  The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1)  the President and the Vice President;

(2)  agency heads and officials designated by the President; and

Where most of those agency heads are also appointed by the president.

30
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: August 24, 2022, 12:35:47 PM »
That 6% in cost will make people swoon over it. As long as it remains cheaper to dig more uranium out of the ground, I would guess we'll never recycle it in the US. Nuke plant operators don't want to reduce their profit margins. In France, 85% of the nuclear utility company (singular) is owned by the French government. We don't want any of that efficient socialism around these parts!

Nope, it's more basic than that. The recycling process involves either "Uranium Enrichment" which can in turn be easily repurposed to make Nuclear Weapons Grade Uranium, so the US killed those. Or you throw it into a breeder reactor which would be even more efficient at reducing the amount of waste generated by the reactor core... Except breeder reactors create plutonium, which also "can be used for nuclear weapons" so the US killed that too in order to "set a good example" for the rest of the world in terms of limiting nuclear proliferation as the world's leading super power.

France isn't a super power, so they don't have to deal with that political narrative.

31
Based on what a read there is a large segment of the population that longs for the 'good old days' under Stalin.
The transition from the time when the state was taking care of everything even if the people didn't have  didn't go well. It changed overnight and left allot of people behind. So I kind of get it.


The ironic thing is that most of his support is coming from their version of the Baby Boomers. And there is an important thing to remember about Russia's production capabilities coming out of WW2.

You might have heard of this program the Americans started in March of 1941 and ran until the conclusion of WW2. It was called Lend-Lease. In addition to all of the production and material support we provided to the Russians, the Americans did one other thing in order to better optimize the kinds of support the Russians would need.

They sent production engineers into Russia to help them streamline and improve their domestic production capabilities. Because the more material they could produce domestically meant that other material support options opened up where Lend-Lease was concerned. In some respects, there are present day parallels that could be drawn with present day China, just over a much longer time scale in China's case.

Leap-frogging off of that Allied support from the 1940's (mostly just doing the equivalent of copy/past all over the Soviet Union) it gave the Soviets several decades of rapid industrialization and improvement in living conditions(which their baby boomers remember all too well), even if it didn't keep pace with "the west." With them even putting their own spin on things on sometimes iterating into some improved variants of their own... But eventually "state of the art 1940's" processes weren't sufficient for the Soviet Union to continue to dominate by the 1980's, although they were still plenty scary in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. In hindsight, we know they pretty much peaked in the early 80's, arguably the 1970's all considered.

Quote
Apparently people memories our short (as seen in the Philippines)

Not sure what you mean about the Philippines? I've been ignoring the news though, so I guess it must be something recent.

32
General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: May 16, 2022, 11:43:14 PM »
So about the right to privacy that Roe v Wade was based on, and rejected by the strict constructionists, here's the bathwater that would go out with the "babies". Other rulings that said the government should stay out of the private matters of citizens.

Viewing pornography in the home
1st Amendment and 4th Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Press (which has been expanded to include media) and protections against unreasonable search and seizure come into play. There also is the 1st Amendments proscription against establishment of a religion. In order to make it not be struck down on religious grounds, they'll need to demonstrate both the "public interest" and "public harm" in John looking at naked women on the Internet in the privacy of his own home.

Good luck building a case that'll stand up to serious scrutiny.

Quote
Sodomy laws

Again, they'll have to establish what "the public interest" in the matter is, and what "public harm" is happening as a consequence of sodomy taking place. In addition to the 4th Amendment proscription against unreasonable search and seizure once again... Exactly how are they aware of sodomy happening in the first place?

Quote
Forcing all children to attend public school

Hahahahahahaha

Quote
Housing ordinances that prohibit family members from living together
A law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives to married couples
A law prohibiting a patient from terminating life extending treatments

Have fun putting the genie back in the bottle when the supreme court rules that there is no reason why someone's gun ownership should be a private matter.

Those get to be a bit more interesting, but generally speaking, those rulings aren't very contested at present.

33
General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: May 16, 2022, 10:38:32 PM »
In the long long run I suspect a repeal of roe will work against those 'pro choice' as the die has been cast.
Sex has over the years become more and more detached from the notion of relationship, commitment... and within that context procreation.  I don't see that rolling back. If it be at a state level or federal one.

The youth will not allow Sex to be uses as a tool to control them (as the church as used it) Once the baby boomers are gone this attitude to 'Freedom' will prevail, time is on thier side. I don't see anything stopping it except maybe force.  And then everyone loses.

Yes... But also no. Repeal of Roe as it stands will work against the "Right to Life" crowd because of how extreme many of the "circuit breaker laws" are on restricting abortion and contraceptive access.

A large portion of Gen X, and a much larger share of the Xenials, Millenials, and Zoomers are going to find that unacceptable enough that they will act to roll the more extreme laws back without regard to party affiliation in many cases. And the problem with that is we're basically dealing with a pendulum at that point. The counter swing will be a massive setback for the Right to Life crowd, although it'll likely "correct" and move more to the center in the years that follow.

It'll be interesting to see how the fallout settles on this one, as an overturn is likely to take some of the wind out of the sails of the Republicans while it gives the Democrats a boost as a great many Republicans will be afraid to speak against what members of their own party did.

34
General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: May 16, 2022, 09:41:24 PM »
Show me the word abortion or the word privacy in the Constitution, anywhere. It's not there. Control over abortion is clearly not a power delegated to the federal government and clearly not a power prohibited to the States so according to our system of government, the one the left claims to support but really only does so as it's convenient, abortion is an issue that is reserved to the States and the people to decide.

This Supreme Court is just setting right the ridiculously absurd political ruling made by its predecessors.

Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things .
Fourth Amendment can be somewhat interpreted in the direction of creating a "right to privacy"

35
General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: May 16, 2022, 09:05:48 PM »
Why are you so scared of letting others make their own decisions on this?

January 6th.

I’m surprised you don’t see the danger as well. Considering your rightful concern about people openly calling for the killing of white people or cops. Such actors shouldn’t be given a public megaphone to recruit and radicalize. They can say all the nasty crap they want drinking in their backyard. We don’t need to have a forum that lets them easily and relatively anonymously broadcast that to the world.

So... If I'm of the view that Musk's approach makes it less likely that such an event would happen(at least, from the right wing) that's unacceptable?

The media forced those people into an extreme fringe by way of using censorship rather than rebuttals to address the issue. It made it impossible for friends, associates, and others to be aware of the scope of the issue and possibly walk those closer to them away from that ledge. Because Facebook and Twitter saw fit to ensure those people "knew" that such thoughts should not be posted there. Neighbors and friends can't fix problems they don't know about. This also in turn runs us back into the public square side of things.

36
General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:56:36 PM »
Even if people had control of perfect opt in filtering that meant you'd never see somebody talking about subhuman n*ggers unless you deliberately choose to, it is in society's best interests to limit the spread of that message and reinforcement of behavior that inevitably leads to harm to the object of their hatred. That hatred might manifest as street altercations, murder, or verbal assault. Being able to see that there are millions of other racists subscribed to r/whitepower encourages racists to feel like it's normal and just another point of view. I mean like, sure that's pretty much what r/tuckercarlson is, but they have to speak in coffee at least.

See my prior post regarding how insulting, and frankly sad, it is to see so many people being fully bought into the idea of there being tens of millions of "racists in waiting" just waiting for their chance to connect with a Racist group online where they'll instantly transform from a 3 of out 10 on the racism scale to 11 out of 10 overnight(or over 20 years) because of that.

You ever consider the possibility that also works in reverse? That 3/10 guy, once exposed to 10/10 guy might very quickly become 1/10 guy instead. That is kind of what happened in the 1960's when the racism of the deep south was given national news coverage on television. Why should you expect people would find "full exposure" any less repugnant today?

Sure, if you let the racists "groom" their targets, you leave those people wide open for conversion, a little bit at a time. But they can only do that now because in major media channels, all they could hope to encounter is a caricature of such groups on a television drama or action/adventure.

37
General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:48:39 PM »
How often do you troll around on 8chan? I don't, its not a good section of internet. Forcing everyone to block every internet troll is harmful to user experience and society. Forget being a public woman on twitter with no content standards. How many lude remarks and harassing messages are okay per day? How many people would walk right up to violent threats? You manage to participate as a civil member of society on this forum despite our moderation rules. Smaller scale but same idea. To foster civil discussion we have some standards. Some members walk fine lines around those standards but generally it works to allow people to largely discuss ideas without threatening each other or devolving into trading insults. Saying twitter shouldn't have any standards because people should be free to express hate as much as they want is crazy. Why can't twitter try to have a reasonable user experience without every Jew on twitter having to block every white nationalist neo nazi bone head who wants to say horrible things to them constantly. If someone is harming the user experience for the majority of users by expressing hate and being hurtful constantly, twitter (as a private entity) has the right to kick them off. The government can't put them in jail for their speech but getting kicked off twitter isn't a government action, first amendment doesn't apply.

Or you know, you provide content filtering options to your users, rather than adopt a one size fits all approach that caters to the lowest common denominator found among a group of people who share certain political leanings.

Quote
The problem with your solution of just block them is that for many people (women, Jews, black people, probably everyone else) their whole twitter experience would end up being consumed by blocking the worst million online trolls before they could actually engage with whatever community they wanted to in the first place.

You're assuming the only option would be to manually block all of those people on an individual basis at the end-user side of things. There are intermediate steps that can be taken.

If you want content filtering by the NAACP, ADL, GLAAD, The New York Times, and whomever else, knock yourself out. Just don't mandate that everyone else has to use the same settings for their use-case.

38
General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:43:45 PM »
Explain attacking somebody who criticized his submarine move as a theatrical offer by calling him a pedophile without it being about his ego and narcissism.

Well, the claim had sufficient merit that the guy lost his lawsuit against Musk...

39
General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:42:38 PM »
My biggest concern are his other business exposures in China that may make him susceptible to pressure to censure for or provide data to the Chinese government behind the scenes. Also it could become an American right wing radicalization organizing tool again. Alex Jones, et al, will love the bigger platforms to spread their lies and con their followers again.

Uh, given Musk's track record over the past 20 years. I have a very strong hunch that most of Musk's business ventures in China are about "saving the world" first, and making a profit second. In fact, he probably considers everything he's invested in China to be "a write-off" from day one, where any profits he does obtain prior to China dropping the hammer on his businesses there is simply gravy. Basically, he's over there so China can steal that IP and incorporate it into their own activities.

40
General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:39:30 PM »
What’s funny is there seems to be a general feeling on the conservative side that Musk is somehow their natural ally.
He's strongly libertarian on most issues. While Libertarians and conservative overlap on a number of issues, where they diverge can have a rather significant gulf that needs to be spanned.

Quote
Musk would peddle his own underage daughters in a brothel if he found it to his advantage.

He has no moral compass as you would recognize it. He’s neurodivergent and plays by a rule book very few people are capable of understanding.

Welcome to the realm of Libertarians, where a great many of them are Anarco-Capitalists.

Quote
He’s very likely buying Twitter with the desire to shape politics and the world with it. He will let free speech fly then shape the narrative with algorithms. If you don’t understand how this is done you’re already playing out of your league.

To what end? His own. What might those be? Magic 8 ball says…

IIRC, he's also said he intends to make much of that same algorithm "far more transparent" and because he owns the company outright, nobody can use the SEC to force him to not make that information more widely available.

Obviously things like SEO counters are going to present a big problem for him, so it'll be interesting to see what they do manage to make public.

41
General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:30:09 PM »
For those interested, there's an in-depth article published by the Brookings Institution.

Quote
Segregating ourselves so we do not have to listen to people who differ from us is not a remedy for the information externalities that make hate speech and misinformation so dangerous even to people who are not exposed to it. People cannot remain indifferent to what other people in society believe because what other people believe affects them. If enough people reject vaccines and other public health measures, we are all at risk from the next pandemic. If enough people become racists or intolerant of the LGBTQ community, significant parts of our community are not safe in their own society. And how are we going to agree on what to teach our children if there is no uniform public platform where we can exchange ideas?

By the same token, you do realize just how insulting it is that many people seem firmly convinced that there are "Millions of racists in waiting" just needing to encounter that one moment where another racist says just the right thing and BOOM they're instantly transformed into a diehard racist who thinks the German SS didn't go far enough.

42
General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:24:24 PM »
Quote
Porn: Pornography is legal is the U.S. Expect large amounts of it in the New Twitter. Some of the acts might be very gross. Revenge porn (naked photos or videos of your ex posted with the intent to humiliate that person) are legal in some places and illegal in others. Expect lots of it from people who live in states that don't have laws against it.

The bottom line it that, to save his bottom line, Twitter isn't going to be that much different from what it is today, as far as censoring content is concerned.  Otherwise, it will probably disappear as a go-to place for content.

Uhhh, there was pornographic content on Twitter well before Musk bought out Twitter, and it was allowed under the TOS, there simply were restrictions when it came imagery which also exist under US Law, and additional proscriptions where real people were involved.

43
General Comments / Re: The Great Replacement?
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:09:24 PM »
But then, as P.Z. Myers explains it when talking about how the "America First" group started acting like a cult, it can be used to manipulate people into believing crazy things...

Quote
Quote
“[Members act so] racist and ridiculous in public that it ruins people’s lives,” said co-host Kelly Weill on the podcast. “You can’t go and get a normal job after that, so they turn further and further into this movement, which really does function almost like a cult.”

"The fact that Gosar and Greene, who have a modicum of power and influence, are entangled with Nick Fuentes, is revealing about the sad state of American politics. How can anyone in the halls of power take this guy seriously?"

That last paragraph, though, explains a lot. America First is openly and loudly racist, and its members have openly slapped that stigma on their records. This is how cults start: throw out one absurdity for your followers to accept, watch as the majority walk away, but the ones who stay…give ’em another absurdity. Then another. And another. You’ve got the few so deeply hooked that you can get them to do whatever you want. ... Fuentes is such a patently hateful fool that his followers have to be committed to stick by him, not by virtue of the quality of his arguments, but because they’re so stupid that admitting that leads to an exposure of their gullibility.

You convince them of extreme views in order for them to belong to the group, which isolates them from others, so that they have no other group they can belong to.  Which ties them closer to the group.  Then they have to accept even more extreme views, tying them closer.  A vicious feedback loop that can make (some) people, especially those who are already isolated and need a group, believe ridiculous things. They have to believe because they have no place else to go.

When the group becomes your life, it doesn't matter what the group believes.  You have to believe it, or you lose everything. :(

And this is why the Ministry of Truth, "remove all speech we disagree with from media platforms" approach was doomed to make things worse from the onset. The more people you force into the fringe for "wrong think" the more powerful you make that fringe. While simultaneously making it virtually impossible for anyone to try to walk those people back from the edge.

44
General Comments / Re: The Great Replacement?
« on: May 16, 2022, 07:59:10 PM »
Can you find a story on the Fox News network site that is earlier?

Oh, here's one from 3:43 PM May 14th. About an hour after it happened.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220514213350/https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-police-mass-shooting-buffalo-grocery-store

You libtards have to stop with the disinformation.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-police-mass-shooting-buffalo-grocery-store

It still exists, but time stamp moved to 6:05PM, probably because they updated it with more information.

45
General Comments / Re: I'm not a bioligist
« on: April 10, 2022, 09:47:43 AM »
It might be illegal to mention this nowadays but I just looked at the racial demographics of Canada and it was interesting, 72.9% European 17.7% Asian 4.9% Indigenous 3.1% African 1.3% Latin American 0.2% Oceanian. Of course there isn't just race but also the fact that Canada didn't have much slavery, according to the internet about 4,200 slaves in Canada between 1671 and 1834 when the British got rid of slavery and two-thirds of the slaves were indigenous people with one third black, so the few black people Canada does have probably don't have the same hateful grievance attitude against their country. Canada is also a lot more particular about who gets to immigrate there. Not just racist either but ageist and ableist.

Uh, you might have heard of a thing called the underground railroad? A lot of escaped slaves wound up in Canada after a certain Supreme Court ruling meant just escaping to a "free state" wasn't enough to ensure continued freedom.

Tangentially, that also ties into another reason why Canada lurched to the left after the 1970's. Vietnam War draft dodgers obtaining Canadian citizenship and having kids, or going to work in education fields inside Canada.

46
General Comments / Re: The Book Banning Begins
« on: April 05, 2022, 12:01:59 PM »
I think it is also worth acknowledging how many different ways there are to acquire books beyond the school library. They don't have the monopoly they once did. If some teen wants to read Brave New World, all you need is a phone and know that it exists. The full text is available all over the place. But the cloistering of the youth is entirely founded on the fiction that many of them are already creating their own graphic scenes.

After "reading" Brave New World by way of Audible, I can see why that one would be controversial.

Between the scenes involving juvenile sexuality (although it doesn't specify age beyond "children"), and otherwise demonstrating a society that has otherwise adopted a view towards sexuality which in present day parlance would be reflective of "free use" attitudes, complete with multiple orgies being mentioned. I can certainly see why that one has normally been kept well clear of K-12 schools.

1984 was positively tame by comparison, even with one of the major characters talking about having had extra-marital affairs with dozens of men.

47
General Comments / Re: The Book Banning Begins
« on: April 04, 2022, 07:59:02 PM »
I'm not even sure 1984 should be in a high school anyhow. Parts of it are quite graphic and even gruesome. Not that I wasn't reading Stephen King at the age of 13...but still, it wasn't given to me by my teachers!

1984 was a class reading assignment for me in High School. I recently have been been playing with an Audible+ subscription, where it and Brave New World are available as part of the subscription. I now know why Brave New World wasn't high school reading material. 1984 gets racy in parts. Brave New World goes well beyond that.

48
General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: March 30, 2022, 07:19:53 AM »
Quote
Breaking down the law on each point, Carter, who sits on the Central District of California and was nominated by President Bill Clinton, writes it is “more likely than not” that Trump and Eastman conspired to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6 — which would be a crime under federal statutes.

“Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” the judge concludes. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.”

Six in one hand, half-dozen in the other.

What Trump was attempting to do may have been "a coup attempt."

But I think an honest review of the relevant law being violated during the attempt is itself a bad law, and one that does need to be revised all the same. It is too rigid as it stands and does have me concerned about future ramifications, as it seems more concerned with a timetable than with election integrity.

It's like arguing with a bunch of Lawful ________ characters about why something is a bad idea and their falling back on "but it is the law"

49
And let's even say they don't care so much about whether you can land the aircraft in XYZ scenario with various types of landing apparatus (on a carrier, on land, with/without landing strip). In fact let's even go further and assume they are in an existential crisis and don't even care that much about the landing at all! How hard could it actually be to get one of these things airborne, learn the controls, and use your previous training for spatial awareness, tactical, etc? Not saying it should be overnight, but I mean what would really be the bare minimum. I have a hard time believing it's 25-30 days, even skimping on weekends/binging. We're talking about 'get the birds up in the air and defend us' level of preparation. Could there realistically be more controls than a sophisticated flight sim or PC game? How long does it take gamers to learn to play at a decent level? Going forward that might not actually be a ridiculous standard for sheer technical skill. The other things (safety, maintenance, etc) might always require long procedure for long-term stability, sure.

I kind of suspect that was their plan with the Polish Migs, get them in the air, carry out attacks against the Russian air defense batteries, and the moment the Russians shoot back and go bingo on their own weapons, have the pilot bail out.

That's an obscenely expensive way to fight a war. Russia's use of Hypersonic Missiles against buildings seems downright frugal in comparison.

1.5 million dollar Hypersonic Missile, or $80+ million dollar fighter jet getting to experience intentional "one time use" before it even leaves the ground?

Yes, "the west" may be effectively bankrolling the war for Ukraine right now, but there is a limit on just how much money they're going to be willing to just "throw away" when there are other options that provide for a lot more "bang," for a lot less money. It just requires more time, and more manpower.

50
I really have no idea how much getting familiar with the limits of the plane most of training is.  I mean how do you know how much you can push a plane unless you have been in it at least some?  I mean when you are in dog fights for you life I assume you are pushing the plane and yourself to your and the planes limits. 

Also are the planes controls in English or Ukranian?  I would assume that might have some input?

Honestly, the pilots are the simpler part of things, and I think that could possibly be turned around in "a couple of months" if the pilot is already experienced in fighters, or at least, experienced in American made fighters... Which the Ukranians won't be. Even then, their "skill" with the plane would be pretty low. Decent enough they shouldn't kill themselves with it in normal (peace time) operating conditions, but I wouldn't be so certain about trying to take on hostile fighters.

The real problem would be in regard to the ground crew and doing maintenance on the planes.

A more realistic option is to just feed them a bunch of predator drones which can be used as a disposable asset, because that's what the American Fighters would end up being otherwise.

Otherwise, get them more surface to air missile batteries to keep the Russians out of their airspace. Honestly the "best" option for giving them American anti-air capabilities likely looks a lot more like getting them equipped with Patriot Missile Batteries, and dealing with training the personnel to operate and maintain those. Although the Maintenance side of that is going to have a lengthy training pipeline too, I'm sure.

S-300/S-400 batteries from other nations would have a much faster turn-around, and less risk of "the good stuff" from the Patriot Batteries finding its way into Russia during/after the war.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 103