sherpa

Not interested in "getting you." But.... You have a post above that has a quote from me that is grossly inaccurate. You seem to have deleted what I said, and included what you did. Honest editing mistake, but to make the record clear, I never said what you posted I said.

I'm not trying to one up you, but you absolutely did say "constantly." That is what got my attention, having a good deal of experience there. Here is the quote from you: "and S and Central American countries are constantly changing hands." You want my opinion on what?

Have to laugh at this one. So this substantiates your claim that "S and Central American countries are constantly changing hands?" I'm sure you would agree that such a claim is ridiculous. I spent ten years down there a many times per month, including running a business from there and I am not aware of these constantly changing hands situations. Stay in your lane.

And they could cut a whole bunch more, and it wouldn't effect safety one bit. Instead they do what they do, and in Buttigieg he is what he is, which is an incompetent Transportation Secretary who took the job because he thought it would advance his political aspirations. In the meantime, let's spend more money changing the names of decades long systems while failing to bring them up to speed, because names are important and performance is not.

Really? I get that it's off topic, but the claim is false. Political governance changes, but boundaries have not, so I don't get your point.

I'll give him a pass on this one. He's facing an offensive which may be Putin's last best. They've lived through a horrible year and an even worse winter. Still, not smart to poke the US. The US is NATO. The US is the reason he is still around, and his only hope. Could have said something like it would be wise for the West to stay the course, but understands the sacrifices other countries have made, and will need to continue to make to achieve a favorable outcome. He should also refuse to be baited by stupid press questions designed to divide.

I've got apologize to All Pro Bills. The GDP numbers are accurate. I had the federal budget, not that we have one, stuck in my aging mind, The military budget numbers I stated are correct, a little less than 800b this year, not the 1.8t in the link, but I owe an apology for the GDP error.

So it went from 778b to 1.9 trillion is one year? A "fun fact" is that if the claim was anywhere near accurate, every kid in the US would have an F-22 in his garage. I have to get out of here before I shake my head off its support.

With due respect, I think there is a gross error in your claim/link. The suggestion that the US GDP is 26 trillion is out of sight insane. Especially, since in the confirming link you posted, the claim is that fourth quarter GDP was 421.1 b, which would mean that the previous three quarters accounted for 50x that. Insanity. Maybe the guy was talking about the entire world, but this is crazy.

At the risk of missing something, where are these bizarre numbers coming from? Our GDP is about one tenth of what is claimed, and defense is about 800b as opposed to the claimed 1.9 trillion.

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.