destroy the current system so hard
Would that get rid of voting in federal elections entirely or have only show elections? Is that even possible as long as elections are managed by the individual states?
America has total air superiority. America has total space superiority. America has total naval superiority.
Couldn't the same be said of the US military situation in Afghanistan across 20 years (modulo the lack of AFG Navy)? All of that can be true, as it's been before (Iraq too), yet the US military can still be in a position where it can't realize its objectives. Fielded Armies, Navies and Air Forces? US quickly wins hands down every time. Terrorists, militias, splinter groups? It takes a lot longer and at an unacceptable level of blood and treasure.
I thought the danger was to more concrete issues, such as not being hired for a job or accepted to a college or being allowed to lease an apartment. If the only danger is in later not being able to attract a high-quality male for marriage and procreation, I think that ship's already sailed. Many men, for better or worse, are sketchy about committing to a woman with a body count in the dozens or hundreds, which is most young women if you believe the usual sources of information (reddit, X, etc.).
be very angry that someone didn't dissuade them at the time
And let them be. If you make stupid decision as an adult against all advice, then you suffer consequences. That's how you grow and become mature. And if the consequences are severe enough, there's then a tiny chance that you'll be a warning for a younger generation contemplating their own version of OF-level stupidity.
No US President under 5'11" has been elected since Jimmy Carter.
It's a trend, for sure. But I really doubt it's the one and only important characteristic of a candidate that predicts his likelihood of success or failure. Which is what several people in this thread seem to be suggesting.
I want to see Pritzker run on a left-leaning populist platform. It's possible he could pull it off because, as a billionaire, he doesn't need to kiss the feet of the democratic donor class.
At the risk of sounding sexist, just sounds like normal Boomer/early Gen-X, upper middle class, educated woman behavior to me. There are plenty of other reasons to dislike her as a political leader.
Talarico is not a moderate
I don't have much exposure to him. Just some sound bites where he comes off as a decent and likeable Christian with down-to-earth, pragmatic ideas about politics. Though I see there's now a kerfuffle over a deep fake Talarico reading some of his old tweets and there's no hiding the fact he's debased himself at the altar of woke in the past. Is that what makes him immoderate? Or is there more to it?
He can be, from time to time, a captivating speaker from prepared notes. But in other situations he comes off as really, really unlikeable, which is a death sentence for a politician seeking the presidency in this age. That's as rational as women who say a guy gave them the "ick", but that's how most operate.
CG overestimates the need for draft
Most Americans, including those in the 18-35 age range, cannot join the Army because they're too fat and/or they smoke weed or take other illegal drugs and/or they've declared bankruptcy and/or they've been found guilty of a crime and/or they're not smart enough and/or they have a medical condition.
The uniformed services raise and lower their standards slightly in order to make recruitment goals, but most people still can't join the military when they're at their lowest. And the DoD has been on record for decades that the worst thing that could happen to the organization would be to suffer under Vietnam-era style draft again. It makes for far worse combat units.
If the military services were forced by the politicians to accept people via a draft, I suspect they'd create units specifically to sequester those people so they'd never get in the way of the professional force.
alcohol
I don't know if that's what he meant, but the etymology of the word alcohol is Arabic.
Yeah, I understand your viewpoint. In the military services, though, there's a lot of emphasis and study of excellence in a way that would probably be pretty foreign to a civilian. Since it's such a common topic, a term that means a place where excellence is performed feels not at all out of the ordinary.
I wish they'd just come out immediately and said "we had bad [old] intel". They, and we, would look so much better if they had. You go to war with the army (and intel) you have, not the one you wish you had. It's an understandable and forgivable error.
I'm American and I thought -- at least in the general directional sense -- we were headed down a fairly good path. At least somewhat better than the one we just got off of. Woke in retreat, plan to reign in immigration, no new wars. These changes were huge. There are other problems that were not going to be addressed. I'd like to see Amazon, as a prime example (no pun), pay more than $0 in taxes per year. But crawl before we walk. Now it doesn't really seem like we were ever really on that path. But because I think most Americans want some or all of the same things I want for the country, I'm still hopeful that positive change can come in time.
And people still boo or cheer this on as if it where a WWE wrestling match.
Yes, this is it IMO. Very perceptive analysis.
"I voted for this" in response to what just a moment ago would have been almost universally agreed upon as barbaric (state agents killing unarmed Americans in the street regardless of reason, et al), broadly gestures towards a rising nihilism, doesn't it?
wokest people in the military
Uniformed targetters, planners and intelligence analysts, none of whom were assigned those specialties or that job because of their individual politics. Does that change your opinion at all?
What are you expressing surprise about? The slashing? Or the name? If it's the latter, that's extremely common in the DoD. Even my college, a public state school, was designated a Cybersecurity Center of Excellence by the DoD, along with several hundred other schools.
this seems like a bad idea to me
In the case of CONUS/Alaska/Hawaii, the children live on the base, some of which are bigger than our smallest state, so bussing them would be bad for quality of life. Overseas it's so American children can go to American schools.
Mistakes happen. A strong, competent leader, secure in his masculinity, owns his mistakes and does so publicly. Learns from them. Expresses regret, if appropriate, and lets people know how and why learning of the mistake will improve his ability to avoid such mistakes going forward. These are the men that other men follow to the gates of hell.
I do wonder how much selective empathy is going on.
For the folks parroting "why should I give a shit about some girl's school", I wonder how many of them have expressed strong public condemnation of abortion because "think of the children". I can't see how both attitudes could coexist within someone who's being honest about each view. Perhaps there's no such person.
This is getting pretty close to the line
That is protected 1st amendment speech. And who actually cares what those privileged mamma's boys say? Blow them off, tell them to their face's they're assholes, or punch them in the nose and take the consequences. But spoiled brats acting out suggests not at all that the FBI and Justice Department need to be involved because Western Civilization is about to collapse.
A DIA analysts secretly passing intel reports to Iran or their proxies would be treason. This isn't just not in that neighborhood, it's not even in the same zip code.
Haven't all American wars had significant numbers serving as opposition to the war efforts? Even WWII? And riots in New York city against conscription during the Civil War? Is there something different with what's going on now that I'm not seeing?
The updated title as of now is "Homemade Bomb Thrown at Protest Near N.Y.C. Mayor’s House, Police Say" at the NYT and it's obvious within the first paragraph that the bomb thrower and maker were leftists. Grabbing a headline while the story is developing doesn't really show active malice, as far as I can tell. It's tinged by "boo outgroup" unless and until they double down on and refuse to correct their mistaken initial reporting.
As to the optics of showing up to a Muslim's house to protest the existence of Muslims: it's not klan tactics like burning crosses on black people's front lawns, but it's more a matter of difference of degree rather than category. I don't think people that dense or hateful are on "my side", no matter what color their ball caps are.
- Prev
- Next

Ah, I see. So Trump destroying the post-WWII world order. Yeah, that's sounds like something I can get behind in principle. Though I'm worried about unintended consequences. There's no going back to simpler times.
More options
Context Copy link