Leaderboard

Assert dominance. Make it bigger.

So you’re saying there’s a chance… Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network mobile app

Hey you walnut, this isn't your strong suit but try thinking from a perspective other than your own. I understand why you don't support Trump over Harris. Obviously I think it's the wrong decision, but I have the cognitive capacity to view it from your perspective based on what you've said. Are you too stupid to do this, or are you just too hurt from the loss to do anything but snipe right now? I sincerely hope that the rest of your party, or better put, the people who think like you do absolutely nothing to analyze the constitutional failings of "their side." Because nothing at this point would make me happier than 4 years of trump followed by 8 years of JD Vance. You had a literal cartoon of a toxic progressive running for president against Donald Trump. That's why Trump won. If you sincerely think that a riot at the Capitol is the most dangerous threat to the Constitution in the past decade or so, then you just aren't paying attention. Some of us are familiar with and care about the entire Constitution, not just the parts that are convenient to our political narrative. I have two candidates who selectively favor parts of the Constitution/BoR. The Democrats far and beyond threaten more of, and more important parts. When the Republicans start threatening all of the norms of Congress, the executive branch, and the supreme Court, then I will wholeheartedly agree with you. But you are pretending like Donald Trump started all of this, when in fact he is just a response to the constitutional disregard of progressives for the past 20ish years.

The constitution doesn't give illegal immigrant pedophiles the right to swing their dong in front of my daughter in a bathroom while making it a hate crime for me to object. you know what, continue your absurd rhetoric. This obvious hysteria is what drove many liberals to abandon the democrat party. I support your TDS self-immolation, continue.

who? @General Chang?

I knew I was not getting a far left progressive who was happy to take away the 1st and 2nd amendment, while paying for the sex changes of illegals and felons in prison all while cramming DEI up my ass.

It's not sarcastic. She possesses a high-school-debate-club-level understanding of politics, war, the Middle East, and our role in the world. I hope she wises up quick if she is confirmed to that role. I don't want someone in that role who thinks we're up to no good at a fundamental level, or someone who thinks we can all get along. I want a stone-cold killer as the DNI. She doesn't seem to fit that description to me.

me too. General Chang.

We’ve decended into Bizarro World when Fetterman and Sanders are the voices of reason!

Who let the geriatric copy/paste an entire article in size 69 font? Someone get that guy a metamucil and take the keyboard from him

He recovered from his stroke in a way that I just wasn't expecting. So I will admit I was at least partially wrong on that front. But he isn't fully recovered obviously, and the stroke didn't give him any superpowers that overcome the fact he was an inexperienced idealistic fool before becoming a senator. Still, I'm struggling with the fact he is one of the few people in Washington, and especially in today's Democratic party, who is inflexible on his moral beliefs. His support for Israel has been surprising and refreshing.

Go touch grass. You seem angry. Ha!

He may not need confirmation if Trump is able to use a recess appointment (or as Gaetz calls it, a first date).

Just checked, FY17 had 60 selects. The two best years were FY19 with 90 selects and FY22 with 100. And those numbers are just for pilot, not the other rated positions

Most believe he resigned effective immediately to stop the House Ethics Investigation from being released. Huh? He has never been convicted of a crime. The DOJ declined to prosecute after their investigation. He was arrested in 2008 for DUI but was not convicted.

Got any proof? Because if DOJ could have nailed him on it I think they would have. its unfortunate after all we’ve seen recently that an accusation is enough to condemn someone.

Hot take: Wonder if Donald Trump winning the election has an impact on number of pilot slots this year… when he won his first election ROTC field training numbers skyrocketed.

You can only say his name 1 more time before he shows up Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

lol what did you think you were getting?

Generals just don't band together to intentionally disobey orders unless those orders are illegal, etc. There's a reason the term, "Adults in the room" was used extensively with Trump Part 1. Some probablythought ideas were coming from an 8 year old. Some of those adults probably felt discipline was needed, just like with children. As for military officers, our loyalty should be to our oath, not to the commander de jour. Last promotion ceremony I was at, I think those were the words I heard. Heatmiser as AG is dumb and he's the first clown named by Trump. if BlowBert gets a shot, she'll be the next clown.

Biff checking in. Negative on Dibs. I'll leave that one for Rachel Maddow.

As reticent as I am to do someone's homework for them, I'll move the ball down the field...so, yes. Watch for one minute; up until about the 3:30 mark. And no, I don't think she's a Russian agent. She characterizes the Iraq war as a war for "financial reasons" that was sold on lies. Now, I was a naysayer (at the time - like in 2003 when I was a cadet) about Iraq part 2. Put another way: I was against the Iraq war before Tulsi was. I didn't think we should have gone in for the reasons we did and I have posts on this site that go back years which indicate that - I'm no Iraq '03 apologist. That being said, there are only two ways you can fairly approach an understanding of our decision for going into Iraq the second time. The first is a fear-based reaction that is grounded in our assumption or lack of knowledge into what Saddam Hussein was up to in the aftermath of 9/11. I thought there were smarter ways to handle that fear and I think in different times and under different circumstances we would have done better. That said, it's a perfectly acceptable response to the "why" behind our decision to go in. The second (fair) way to approach the decision is to acknowledge that we "went in for the oil." Though that one requires you to grapple with the fact that we're going to trade blood for oil. I am a blood for oil guy because I'm a realist. We are not going to allow a dictator on the other side of the world put a stranglehold on the global economy. We fight over natural resources. We always have and we always will. Decrying "no blood for oil" is absolutely ignorant, hippy-coded nonsense. If you want to be a realpolitik type, you can lean on this one. If you want to be a hippy pacifist, you can lean on it as well. It works for both groups. So yes, I agree, if you want to characterize it as "we went in for financial reasons," then yeah, sure we did, but then again, everything we do has a financial dimension, so it's really not a very illustrative way to view the world...but I digress. The problem I have with her, however, is her characterization of the "why" surrounding going in for oil. She posits some sinister, financial, get-rich-quick, evil motivation that led the likes of Dick Cheney to use 9/11 as a pretext to get Halliburton into Iraq - which was always his master plan...it was closer to the view I had when I was 20...but I was 20. I'm now a grown up. Zip ahead to 4:45 when she goes into "just like we wouldn't want Venezuela to come to our country..." to over throw our government, we shouldn't go into theirs...blah, blah, blah. It underscores this neo liberal idea(l) that all country's are equal and get to have an equal say in the way the world works. Nah. No thanks. Venezuela's merry-go-round of dictators don't get to have an equal say in the way the world works because they're a so-called country with borders on the map. There are other examples available, but I'm not going to trouble myself more tonight by expounding anymore on them at length. The bottom line is that her world-view is conspiratorial, and that one which has no place in a position as serious as the DNI. So no, what I'm doing is not name-calling. I am looking fairly at the implications of her worldview and it concerns me. I haven't written her off. Like I said, I hope she's a fast learner with an open mind. On a somewhat related note to help characterize how I approach the world, I also think the regime in Iran must be toppled. October 7th has necessitated it, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes a reality. I'm not a war-monger, though. I'm just taking an honest look at who's who in the world, and "countries" that engage others in that manner have to be transformed. That usually takes force.

I think Tulsi was a great pick. Gaetz might be entertaining at times, but he ain't right. I wouldn't select him as dog catcher. I hope he steps up and does his job appropriately, but that appointment might bite trump in the butt.

My brain has two points of view on this: First and foremost, any leadership involved specifically in the Afghanistan withdrawal should be keelhauled, then fired, and exempted from any mil-industrial complex jobs. Second, the concept of subjective and politically based "purging general officer leaders" should induce shivers and revulsion from anyone who has studied history. This will be messy.

Normally I’d agree, but these are exceptional circumstances. Think of his context: he’s been hounded by false accusations, literally had SES level players working with opposing campaigns to fabricate stories about him, his own generals illegally conspired behind his back to undermine his orders…. This has been a unique period on our history. He was given a decisive mandate for change by the American people, and knows from experience he cannot execute without a team committed to his vision. If you were a WG/CC leading a complete re-org under pressure of WW3 and given total hiring authority, would you rather have a team of SQ leaders you trusted to follow your intent or a team who had the normal pedigree but you knew their hearts weren’t onboard with your priorities? An imperfect analogy but it conveys my point. saying “loyalty is a key hiring criteria” plays into the dictator claims made against him, but I also see his perspective. If a boss asked for my loyalty, I’d say “loyalty to what?” The mission? The team? The ideas we took an oath to protect? Commanders intent? Or you personally even if you commit crimes? The first 4 are fine of course, the fifth definitely not. He’d be better served saying “trust” instead of “loyalty” but who am I to give advice? Bottom line I’m excited to see how it plays out and optimistic.

so your price to abandon the constitution was as cheap as trump's...