sherpa

In the "good people on both sides" claim, there is no attempt at plausible deniability. He directly condemned those groups in the same interview, making sure he was understood. These are the kinds of repeated lies that empower the folks who defend him against legitimate claims. There is no need to make stuff up.

This part of the transcript? "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” When he said the "fine people on both sides" thing he was talking about people on both sides of the remove the Lee statue issue, and he was correct. This repeated lie is either gross ignorance or willful deception, and it will be just that every single time the lie is repeated. Either way, he never said that those repugnant groups were fine people, and he made that point twice, as I have quoted from the transcript that you challenged people to read.

The trip and visit to Kiev isn't accurately portrayed as travelling 16 hours into a war zone. An honest portrayal of a "war zone" does not allow one to stroll around. He is clearly infirm, and I can't watch him live, because it makes me uncomfortable. He struggles to even read prepared notes, and is obviously, aggressively "handled." The entire situation is awkward.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain this?

I had a feeling this would be misunderstood after I posted it. My fault for not being more clear. Being an all volunteer force does not relieve one from following legal orders, and we're not in a bad way. My point is that being volunteer, you can resign from active duty, and that is what I believe would happen on a very large scale if there was some whiff of using active duty people in a shooting war inside the US. Such a mass resignation would take time, but the effect would be immediate. In addition, I believe their would have to be some changes that would have to be in place before such an order could be given, as one of the requirements of the UCMJ is to not obey an unlawful order. I believe the active duty military could not issue such an order. Using the National Guard for minor police augmentation is a different and legal issue. Regarding how small a minority is that thinks that way, the officer corps in the US military is every bid as diverse as the general population, so presumably the same differences that would lead up to this hypothetical would exist there and render it dysfunctional as a unified force. In my experience, despite what you may think, I cannot imagine a circumstance where US pilots would strike known civilians in the US.

What I am saying is that the fact that it is an all volunteer force, and that eliminates the term "mutiny." The hypothetical would have to be more clearly defined, but in my view, the military would not survive intact if there was an internal conflict of any scope, especially if it was a regional situation. The 9/11 situation notwithstanding, where there was intent to take down hijacked airliners inside US borders, the concept of using the US military in a civil war scenario is simply unimaginable. The simple regional nature of National Guard units, much more important in the total defense capability than at any time prior, is alone an issue that makes this not thinkable. The US is suffering from very problematic recruitment and retention issues, especially in highly skilled areas, like pilots, and the buildup to such a scenario would be catastrophic to that issue.

I admit that I haven't read this thread, but if this is a reference to some kind of civil war, I most strongly disagree with your conclusion regarding the military. I get that the entire thing is hypothetical. "Punishing a few" would not stop the disintegration of an all voluntary military. Additionally, you could never get US pilots to do something internally of any scale.

This is completely about Putin. It isn't about how US presidents or scores of other leaders may have misjudged him in year's past. The man is different now, and dealing with the 2023 Putin is a separate argument.

Ya. I am saying that. You are obsessed with Trump. You can't stop posting about him, even guessing about what he would have done. Those of us who don't like him don't need to do that. We don't need to make up ridiculous scenarios, like "almost started a war."

It is preposterous to think I have any obsession with you. You simply post idiotic stuff that draws attention because it is nonsense. So..Given the presidents you have talked about today: Who was in the White House when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? Who was in the White House when the Russians invaded Crimea and the Ukraine? Yet Trump, per you, "nearly" started a war with Iran. Do you ever consider how silly you look?

So this proposed response to a hostile Iranian act, which amounts to nothing more than a drone strike is what you base this claim off? Just stupid. Two presidents you've chatted about today, ex the current one. One, Trump, which is your obsession, and really never got us close to a war with Iran..... And the second, Carter, who not only nearly got into a war with them, but screwed up the attempt badly and got a bunch of Americans needlessly killed. The logic is uncanny.

You have made this same claim over and over. There has to be something more than you "memory." It's kind of a serious claim.

I'm not sure of your memory. Neither am I sure that we came within hours of attacking Iran. What info do you have that states we were within hours....

This is about the fifth time you have made this claim. What is it based on?

I have no hope that every US dollar will be spent efficiently, and I hope that the current US Administration has the discipline to monitor these things, but again, I doubt it. Still, the Russian strategy was counting on two things: 1. A rapid takeover and occupation of Ukraine soil, and overthrow of the Ukraine regime. 2. A failure of NATO and the rest of the western world to be willing to hold the course in opposition. We are probably near the tipping point of the second hope, and I think we should commit to seeing it through. Russia is in a deep hurt. They can't do this forever. If we can hold on and continue to support them, in all reasonable military ways, we will end this. If not, we are bound to fight it again.

No. Not at all, and I have no doubt about his intellectual capacity. What I am saying is that I think it's disingenuous for these politicians, which is exactly what he is, to talk about their military service when it amounted to nothing more than keeping a uniform warm. I think he is a terrible Sect. of Transportation, and I doubt he is even concerned except what it can do for his political aspiratiins.

His service in the Navy is a zero. His deployment had him assigned to a forensic accounting group that looked into the insurgency financing. In other words, sit in an office and read stuff that others developed. He also drove superiors around, which he referred to as being a "military uber."

And as a third grader, clearly unaware of the energy crisis, the misery index, the Iranian hostage crisis or operation eagle claw. Some great times.

Just for awareness, this dirt bag was from Missouri and travelled to Charlottesville for this nonsense, just as the guy convicted of murder was from Ohio.

I didn't see anything about China or surveillance balloons, and a resume check shows absolutely nothing lending credence to a claim he would know anything about that. He was an enlisted Navy guy who was one of the POW camp instructors, and he recently volunteered to fight in the Ukraine. What gives him any knowledge of balloon surveillance technology? Not that I heard him say anything about that in the link.

Trudeau authorized it. Even in the NORAD org, Trudeau does not have the authority to "order" US engagements. Biden did as well, and it was shot down by a US F-22.

It wasn't a Canadian fighter, it was a US F-22. From your very own link: "it was a U.S. F-22 that “successfully fired at the object.”

When was that?

This war is starting to have other effects. The US State Department issued a travel warning yesterday urging US citizens to get out of Russia, and avoid travel there because of unusual harassment by Russian police.

This is a perfect example of the utter vacuous nature of your participation. The discussions about our current Sect. of Transportation, whose major accomplishment is spending millions to get NOTAMS, (Notices to Airman), changed to Notices to Air Missions, so as to eliminate the sexism of the original name, in use since Orville and Wilbur. He then presides over the entire failure of that system, resulting in a complete ground stop, ie., death to the system until resolved. Thankfully, didn't take too long. He has done nothing. Anyway, you then assert that people who kind of know about this stuff really dislike him for other reasons, which is preposterous. You then, seemingly without any ammo to defend him, direct your crosshairs on a previous holder of that position who was responsible for the explosion of drone regulations and auto driving vehicles. What's next? Actually, nobody cares. You add nothing.