Leaderboard

Actually got a chance to listen to his speech. I don't think it's as big a deal as I did before, however share @ClearedHot concerns.

True on both accounts.

I know this won't make sense to you, because fundamentally the progressive sees only problems in the present and solutions in the future, whereas the conservative sees success in the present and problems in the future. Both are necessary, but they see the world differently. Kamala, Obama, Bernie, AOC, whoever. Now that the DNC is being steered by the progressives (and not the Clinton style liberals), there's no question for a conservative. Progressives are proudly and loudly vilifying the institutions and norms that conservatives believe made our society possible and prosperous. They defend real threats today (illegal immigration, the failures of socialism, the death of meritocracy) in the name of invisible threats (trans genocide, islamophobia, unconscious bias). The things we believe make America what it is (individualism, limited government, free speech, law and order) are the stated enemies of the progressives. Sure there are definitely threats from the right. Anyone now associated with Tucker Carlson is most likely a populist threat. But they aren't in charge, and in fact, they increasingly hate Trump. But I'll take the insane liar (Trump) who at least claims to support the things I support (and acts on them frequently) over the "sane" liars (Kamala) who have opposed my ideals for their entire career. You want it to be a hard choice. Hell, I want it to be a harder choice. But it's not. I like most of Trump's policy. I detest almost everything the progressives stand for. So if you want me to say Trump is a lunatic, yep, agreed. But if you want me to say Kamala would have been better for the country... Nope. Canada tried that with Trudeau and it was a disaster. No thanks. I know. You disagree. But you keep reinforcing our point when you think you're disproving it.

Please check out the small sampling (posted below) of Trump’s posts from yesterday. Just yesterday. Take a look and ask yourself: is this person of sound mind? If I had a senior leader, say my WG/CC, whose daily social media footprint looked anything like this, …..what would I think? How would I react? What assumptions would I make about his character, his focus & priorities, and his fitness to lead (especially in a time of war)? Harris was no doubt a deeply flawed candidate to say the least. But to still pretend that Trump is the lesser evil is really an astonishing level of delusion and tribalism. As anyone honestly watching can tell, Trump’s give-a-shit meter is rapidly approaching zero. And who can blame him? He’s had to masquerade for over 10 years. Can you imagine how exhausting that must be? 10 years of pretending to know what you’re doing while you’re completely overwhelmed and out of your league? 10 years of trying to act smart or knowledgable while you’re actually a total ignoramus? After a lifetime of amassing personal wealth, running through wives and porn stars, seeking fame and attention on TV, to suddenly turn around and pretend to be selfless? Pretending to give a $hit about other people when you’re hard-wired to only care about yourself. Pretending to care about lying….to fake caring that in normal society, you can’t just obviously lie and have everyone go along with it? The facade, thin though it always was, is vanishing rapidly. The social media posts, aided by AI, far crazier than ever. The interview and press answers, more rambling, nonsensical, and demented than ever. The lying, now completely off-the-charts blatant and obvious, even to a laughable degree. The corruption and profiting from the office more overt and at a larger scale than ever before. Behind the facade is just the same old, stupid, bloated egomaniac that was always there. We’re now getting to the chapter where he doesn’t even have to try to fake it or hide his true self. “Holy $hit, how much crazier will he get?” honest people ask themselves. What will it be like when his give-a-shit meter is inevitably pegged at zero? This is a complete and total national embarrassment. Full stop. Every day. ….But anyway, yeah, thank god Harris isn’t in there. Phew. We really dodged a bullet.

The US Govt and DoW have such a great record of doing the right thing... never forcing vaccines or chemicals on soldiers...the government would NEVER do such a thing. Glad I wasn't a soldier at Edgewood Arsenal in the 50's or 60's, unknowingly given LSD and PCP. Or a U.S. soldier in Vietnam swimming in Agent Orange. Or one 60,000 enlisted men enrolled in a once-secret government program — formally declassified in 1993 — to test mustard gas and other chemical agents on American troops. Or one of approximately 235,000 military personnel that participated at one of 230 U. S. atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from 1945 through 1962. What problem is he actually trying to solve? Low testosterone is a legitimate medical issue. It can affect energy, mood, bone density, and overall health. Service members who have medical concerns should absolutely have access to proper evaluation and treatment. But testosterone levels are not a measure of military effectiveness. A fighter pilot does not become more capable because of a number on a blood test. A special operator does not become a better warrior because his testosterone level is higher. Leadership, courage, judgment, discipline, technical skill, and the ability to perform under extreme stress are what define combat effectiveness. This appears less like a readiness initiative and more like a symbolic "macho test" designed to reinforce an image of toughness rather than measure actual performance. Medical data is among the most personal information a service member has. A testosterone number, taken out of context, could become another metric used to unfairly judge, stigmatize, or question the commitment and capability of otherwise outstanding personnel. Will a pilot with low testosterone be viewed differently during a promotion board? Will a commander subconsciously question the fitness of a highly capable officer or enlisted member based on a medical measurement that has little correlation to combat performance? Could this create pressure for unnecessary treatments or encourage a culture where service members feel compelled to alter their bodies to meet an artificial standard of "warrior masculinity"? The armed forces already have proven standards: physical fitness tests, weapons qualifications, evaluations, training events, and operational performance. Those are the metrics that tell us whether someone is ready for combat. The battlefield does not care about testosterone levels. A drone operator, pilot, maintainer, or infantry leader is judged by results — not by a hormone panel.