ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,567 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
3 minutes ago, sherpa said:
Not possible, and not a good idea.
The simple reality is that they have absolutely no way of utilizing such systems.
Total waste of effort.
From what I've read, there is discussion on training them, but I agree that doing that in a war is too difficult. There also had been discussion of transferring NATO planes to former Eastern Bloc countries so those countries can send their MiGs and SUs to Ukraine, but I don't get the impression that this is happening either.
-
13 minutes ago, sherpa said:
Absolutely not.
The Ukrainians have come to the conclusion that airplanes are not the answer.
The A-10 proposal was a really bad idea.
Ah, I didn't realize they had changed their minds. I recall them asking for F-15's and F-16's, but the Biden administration was worried about them using the planes to strike inside Russian territory.
In any case, they need to be able to destroy Russian artillery to level the playing field. HIMARS seem to be doing a good deal there, but they only have a couple and Russians are already adjusting their tactics.
-
"According to a federal indictment unveiled Friday, Russian intelligence officers also cared deeply about West Coast secession — as part of an effort to destabilize the United States.
The indictment focuses on Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov, a resident of Moscow and head of the "Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia," Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen said in a statement. Prosecutors alleged he worked with at least three Russian officials on a "brazen influence campaign, turning US political groups and US citizens into instruments of the Russian government," Olsen wrote.
That effort involved hosting government-funded conferences in Russia, inviting secessionists from around the globe, as well as providing "financial support, consulting, instruction and promotion in Russia media outlets" to separatist movements in the US."
Add the California secessionist movement to the other accounts / groups being used by Russia to harm the US:
-
Twitter accounts:
- @TEN_GOP
- @jenn_abrams
- @Pamela_Moore13
- @America_1st_
- @march_for_trump
-
Facebook Groups:
- "Being Patriotic"
- "Stop All Immigrants"
- "Stop All Invaders"
- "Secured Borders"
- "Tea Party News"
- "Black Matters"
- "Blacktivist"
- "Don't Shoot Us"
- "LGBT United"
- "United Muslims of America"
-
Social Media hashtags:
- #HillaryClintonForPrison2016
- #nohillary2016
- #KIDS4TRUMP
-
Twitter accounts:
-
3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
So what's the answer Goose? There has to be a better way than all of this carnage and destruction....no?
I'm not sure what the answer is or if there even is one.
But from what I can tell, the only thing that might accomplish both:
- Recovering all of, or enough Ukraine territory to allow the Ukrainians to feel comfortable with a peace deal; and
- Punching Russia in the face enough that they have to accept their losses and acquiesce to a deal
Would be to supply the Ukrainians with enough weapons, ammo, and intelligence, to enable them to push Russia back, at least to the 2014 ceasefire borders, if not further.
Already, the HIMARS are changing the game. Give them more, and give them additional weapons like MLRS, drones, maybe even planes, and tons and tons of ammo.
There is no scenario I can think of in which a peace is reached without things getting a lot bloodier first.
-
1
-
1 minute ago, meazza said:
My point is that the Ukranians will be easier to control but there is no guarantee that the Russians will abide to any agreement.
This feels true to me.
Also to note that, after the atrocities in Bucha and the reports of Russians castrating POWs and then murdering them will make it very hard for Ukraine to accept any agreement that leaves parts of Ukraine under Russian control.
Ultimately, whatever deal is to be made must be made by the Ukrainians and I just don't see them agreeing to anything that keeps Ukrainians under Russian control.
-
19 minutes ago, Doc said:
Contact and collusion to rig an election are 2 entirely different things.
It's more like: working together towards a shared goal is not the same as entering into an agreement to work together towards a shared goal.
But the end result is the same: there's no crime of collusion and no agreement between the parties means no conspiracy.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, aristocrat said:
The irony is that the Steele Dossier was believe by conspiracy believing morons. Said Dossier was created by the Dems. This lead to years of a Russian investigation that in the end was a bunch of nothing. With how large Hillary's campaign was and her husband's foundation what do you think what occur if they investigated every single one of their employees and foreign contacts? https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10/inside-hillary-clintons-massive-foreign-policy-brain-trust/
1. The Steele Dossier
The Steele Dossier was covered terribly by the media and caused people to believe it was a thing that it was not. What happened was that the Clinton Campaign paid their lawyers to get oppo research on Trump. The lawyers then found a company that had been doing oppo for one of the GOP primary challengers and paid them to continue their work. That company, FusionGPS, then subcontracted this out to a former spy (Steele) who then put together a raw intelligence piece.
There is a tremendous difference between a raw intelligence document and an intelligence assessment. The dossier was the former but was treated as the latter. Essentially, it's a document saying "this is what we've heard and been told, but we have not analyzed these claims for credibility" but the media took it to mean that these claims had been vetted, which was wrong. It is not surprising that most of it was just junk, but that's what happens with raw intelligence and why it needs to be analyzed. The media totally botched this.
2. The Russia Investigation
The Steele Dossier did NOT lead to the Russia investigation. The investigation was underway before then. The investigation also was not bogus and was found to be properly predicated. While there were issues with things like the Carter Page FISA, the investigation found dozens of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. However, since "collusion" is not a legal term of art, Mueller compared the facts to the crime of conspiracy, which requires an agreement between the parties. While the Russians and the Trump campaign both wanted to help Trump and frequently worked together (something that might meet the colloquial definition of "collusion"), they did not have an explicit agreement to work together and therefore did not meet the elements of a conspiracy.
3. Hillary Campaign
I would have no problem with investigating the Hillary Campaign for wrongdoing if it is appropriate. In fact, I believe they recently got in trouble over the Steele Dossier. They believed the document was embarrassing and wanted to bury it, so they hid how they paid for it to avoid it becoming public. This was blown when the dossier was leaked (I believe by Steele himself), which lead to the Clinton campaign being fined for not following disclosure requirements.
-
1 minute ago, DRsGhost said:
Ignore. Then deflect. How very predictable.
1. Did the media writ large and big tech ignore and in some cases outright censor the NY Post reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop in October 2020?
Yes or no?
2. In my hypothetical in regard to the media doing the same thing with Trump as with the Biden laptop qualify as election interference?
Yes or no?
The irony of deflecting by saying I deflected... I know you'll never answer my question but, sure, I'll answer yours.
1. The media effed up the Hunter Biden laptop. The problem with conspiracy believing morons who make up garbage about their political opponents is that when they actually have something with a grain of truth to it (even if that truth isn't exactly what they are claiming), it gets dismissed into the large pile of BS they've been raging about.
2. No.
-
3 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Again that's you're misinformed reality, but carry on with the exercise that you conveniently ignored why don't you?
So you're saying that the 2016 Trump campaign did not have numerous contacts with Russians and work with Russians to help the campaign?
-
1 minute ago, Buffarukus said:
but coming to this country illegally is a crime. you are saying red states should ignore it. im not generally disagreeing with you if illegals are living peaceful productive lives. but im not going to ignore the basis of what a sanctuary state is saying. come illegally and you will no longer have to worry about this crime. that is signaling to people around the world..cross illegally and come to us and we will protect you. that's not good in any sense for the multitude of reasons i laid out. people are dying, kids are being trafficked ect ect ect and you are essentially saying endorse it regardless of laws.
i drill down to specifics with you as i did with our other conversation...the covid whoopsies! remember? and i think you don't have a good response so you kind of generalize and ignore them. in the whoopsie case your response was, things are hard to get done in the government. ignoring all the work i put into showing clear evidence people who spent their entire lives in virology were either lying or unbelievably wrong in the field they spent their education and lives.
in this case we are going in circles on what a sanctuary is actually promoting and its effects. at the end of the day empathy feels great. id love to take that side but know full well that their are major repercussions and victims being produced from this so ill stand up to highlight regardless of what others think, right wing nazi yada yada. the truth is empathy is just as dangerous as hatred if just blindly followed, even more so because its camouflaged. we see alot of negative effects that many ignore with this as everyone wishes to be on the right side of things, thats not necessarily the one you can advertise.
sorry I'm ranting on here again. i think we should agree to disagree as maybe you just don't see my point.
I think your point is valid, I just don't agree with it. And I think that's fine to have a difference of opinion.
Sanctuary cities do not prevent immigration enforcement, they just don't take on that federal responsibility locally. It's fine to say that the local law enforcement should help federal agents enforce immigration, I just personally think that has more negative consequences than positive ones.
Additionally, studies have shown that sanctuary cities either have the same crime rates as non-sanctuary cities or even lower rates. So from a crime perspective, sanctuary cities can make sense (as I have pointed out with encouraging assistance with local law enforcement). Since all resources, including law enforcement, are limited, focusing on the people who are here illegally and are also committing other crimes seems preferable to me than utilizing limited resources to round up anybody who is undocumented, regardless of whether or not they had committed other crimes.
Ultimately, it's up to the federal government to enforce immigration laws. But our system is hopelessly broken. So while we can advocate for changes we believe will improve the system, we have to be realistic about the reality we face now and the choices we have.
-
1
-
-
Karrin Taylor Robson was up when the polls closed but then, overnight, the lead changed to Kari Lake. I am told this means it's all fraudulent and it must be the fault of the Deep State Democrat Reverse Vampire Cannibal Pedophiles.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Imagine for a moment that Russia Trump collusion actually happened and was real.
Imagine reality? Sure, easy enough.
-
25 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:
this doesn't change my original point. you have 2 choices. follow the law or change it.
Sanctuary cities are not breaking the law.
Local police are not responsible for immigration enforcement. However, if they suspect that someone in their custody may be here illegally, they often contact immigration enforcement and keep the individual detained until the feds arrive.
Generally, sanctuary cities simply do not do that. Law enforcement processes people based on what they are charged with and leaves immigration enforcement to those charged with responsibility for it.
-
38 minutes ago, B-Man said:
The FBI Twice Interfered in the 2020 Election to Sabotage Trump. Now What?
.
My brain was melting out of my ears with the lunacy of this article, but it all made sense when I saw the author, whom I've never seen post anything requiring brain cells.
-
The botched FBI operation around Whitmer was somehow a plot against Trump
- This is stupid. The FBI has been walking the very thin line between informants and entrapment for a long time and they really need to dial it back. But to claim that they do it just for political reasons requires a tremendous amount of ignorance on what they've been doing for years.
-
Military style round up of Jan 6 rioters
- This is also stupid. Thousands of people were at the Capitol on Jan 6 but fewer than 1,000 have been arrested and 90% of those have been released while awaiting their trials. This is exactly how you would expect law enforcement to react to these events
-
Claims of collusion with Russia in 2016 were phony
- Apparently this author did not read (or, given their grasp of facts and reality, is incapable of reading) the Mueller report. The 2016 Trump campaign was crawling with Russians, including Russian agents. Mueller documented dozens of interactions between the campaign and Russian operatives, but he made the decision not to evaluate based on "collusion" since that is not a legal term.
Also, the idea that law enforcement agencies such as the FBI skew liberal is really hard to believe given the people who generally sign up to work in law enforcement. It also requires completely ignoring James Comey's actions that may have tipped the election to Trump in 2016 when he broke with long-standing agency precedent by sending the Comey Letter.
-
1
-
The botched FBI operation around Whitmer was somehow a plot against Trump
-
Has anyone been able to find the actual changes in the text between the two versions of the bill?
I pulled the text from HR 3967 from June and S. 3373 with amendments and I only found one material change, which was removing the following language:
"(e) Not A Taxable Benefit.—A contract buy out for a covered health care professional under subsection (a) shall not be considered a taxable benefit or event for the covered health care professional."
I can't believe that is the only change, and with different versions of the the same bill out there, I may have pulled the wrong versions. Does anyone have the specific text that was changed / challenged?
-
8 hours ago, Buffarukus said:
so why is there no pressure to fix it at the national level? seems as though this administration has clear intentions of not enforcing the law yet none to reform it either causing more of said problems you are implying.
so YOU have 2 choices. invite illegal aliens to your state knowing full well they are breaking the law to begin with and tell them you will provide cover, thus promoting more illegals into crossing for this arangment and then talking about problems..scared to talk to police. or tell illegals you will not provide cover for a illegal act and instead fight for congress to make necessary changes where "undocumented" is not a major issue by giving citizenship or making legal crossings more attainable. thus they can move/ live free in our society without relying on states to declare they are accomplices to a boarder crisis/illegal citizenship as if its no big deal.
declaring you are breaking federal law is becoming pretty common. states just giving the finger as they see fit and we wonder why civil war is on the table.
If you are a mayor of a large city, there are likely already many undocumented people in the city to begin with. Regardless of whether or not you "invite" them, they are already present in your city. You can lobby Congress and make as much noise as you want, but you have no authority to change enforcement of immigration laws. So the question is, what do you do about that?
Do you want the people who are already in your city to feel safe to work with law enforcement to report crimes? Or do you want them to be too scared that they might get deported, allowing criminals to go free (or worse: leverage someone's immigration status to abuse or otherwise harm them, knowing they won't go to the police)?
We need to fix our immigration system, but a mayor has little to no influence over that. Also, things that could help are generally not popular (increasing caps and quotas, better funding for immigration courts, a more accessible legal immigration policy, etc.) and the things that are popular generally don't help (a big dumb wall in the middle of a desert when most undocumented people come into the US legally or snuck in through ports of entry).
There's no incentive to fix this because our politics are broken and our politicians would prefer to have a broken system to rail against in ads and speeches then actually do anything to help.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:
maybe have legal immigration that documents people? 🤔
if that is a issue..hear me out. you fight to fix the policies to make it cheaper/easier to become a citizen? instead of "welcoming" people who brake the law and saying thier are issues that arise for not doing so.
leftists love to look straight past options that involve actually doing the right thing as if there simply no personal choices in this world.
Immigration policy is set at the national level. Cities don’t really have much influence in granting citizenship.
Immigration policy is also hopelessly broken because there is no real reason to fix it.
Therefore, if you are the mayor of a city, you may have a large undocumented population but you have no policy levers in which to fix it.
So your options are to either allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes or be witnesses in cases against criminals, or you can make them too scared to help with crime because they are worried you will deport them.
If your goal is to actually solve crimes, this is an exceedingly easy decision to make.
-
1 hour ago, B-Man said:
Well, he’s right.Unless you think allowing criminals to do whatever they want to undocumented immigrants with no repercussions is a good thing.
-
9 minutes ago, BillStime said:
The DoJ might actually be going after Trump himself. I was skeptical that they would but the news of the last week is making me change my mind. -
-
18 minutes ago, Demongyz said:
True, but who do you think the terrorists would be more afraid of, the lunatic or the teleprompter readers?
I doubt it enters their equation.-
1
-
-
The importance of good speech writers…
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1554294718254780418?s=21&t=xiwAjMNSATTIfxx9fBufJg
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:
The discussion is not about her body. It’s about the baby’s body…but you know that.
If the people advocating these laws *actually* cared about the baby, they would enact laws that supported pregnant women, made it easier to make the decision to keep the baby, and support mothers and babies after the birth.
But instead, states with restrictive abortion laws also have worse maternal and child health outcomes than those with looser abortion laws.
They have higher rates of child poverty, uninsured women and children, low-birthweight babies, infant mortality, and maternal mortality.
So clearly, they don't actually care about the babies.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Unless, like hundreds of millions of people, you believe that you are killing a baby.
So there is that .
And despite the fact that the idea of life beginning at conception is a relatively new concept (especially in the US), these people get to impose their beliefs and will upon everyone else?
A leading California secession advocate got funding and direction from Russian intelligence agents, US government alleges
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Ok, this is totally off topic at this point, but CRT is a law school level theory. Who is teaching that to kids?