2024

656,314 Views | 10668 Replies | Last: 42 min ago by Redbrickbear
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 11:07a, 12/13/23
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
look at the magnitude of movement in independents. 26 points toward Trump.

So interesting that all of these voters are magically starting to like your boy Trump after hating him for years.

Let's see if that holds true on election day. My money says no way, and Biden is going to pull out another one. But I am glad to see you are keeping the faith. I just hope you're not disappointed.

Again.
I agree that the move to Trump is suspicious.

Let's give the polls the benefit of the doubt, people are lamenting for their Trump 2019 economics and Putin not invading Ukraine on Trump's watch.

What I don't think is being accurately reflected is Trump himself. When was the last time he was on TV? All the things that independents and Dems hated about Trump are still there, just not on display. Get him on the stage hoovering over Hillary. Get him talking about under his watch it was the greatest ever. Get him on TV telling people how the election was stolen.

He is not in the race, not in the publics eye. All they see of him is a martyr being persecuted and remember a good economy. I think when he has to get out there, they will be reminded and his lead will disappear.

But, I do not think it will be Biden or Harris. I think after the 1st of the Year we will see a new Dem, maybe Newsome. He has the look and speaking ability from a large State.
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:24p, 12/13/23
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 7:57p, 12/13/23
boognish_bear said:
Notice the background behind Trump? That quote was from last year, when gas prices were that high in places.
Reply Quote
2
Jack Bauer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:40p, 12/13/23
She just can't handle even questioning J6....

Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 5:18a, 12/14/23
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
look at the magnitude of movement in independents. 26 points toward Trump.

So interesting that all of these voters are magically starting to like your boy Trump after hating him for years.

Let's see if that holds true on election day. My money says no way, and Biden is going to pull out another one. But I am glad to see you are keeping the faith. I just hope you're not disappointed.

Again.
here's what you're missing: no, they are not magically starting to like him. most voters don't like politicians, even the likeable ones, very much. unlike the idealists (which include the hyper-partisans), the average person votes for people they don't know and don't like all the time. yes, likeability matters, particularly when one candidate outclasses the other in that trait. But that's not the choice this cycle. The choice will be between two historically unlikeable candidates, and that will tend to make the election turn on the issues. The guy with the bigger disadvantage is the incumbent whose policies have screwed the voter. THAT is what the polls are showing.

Democrats pathway to victory looks something like this: somehow, they have to convince voters that abortion is the most important issue of the day. They will sure try hard. And they will (again) max out their turnout of single white women. Not sure that will be enough to swamp everything else, though. We know how bad it is for Trump. it can't get much worse. There literally is nothing that could happen to him that would cause his support to evaporate. His floor is about 44%, and he's flirting with 50, so while I share concerns about him having a low ceiling, there is evidence he does have enough headroom to win.

Biden, though...that dude is the avatar for "soft floor." He is nowhere near his bottom.

Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:19a, 12/14/23
left here. first post in Twitter feed:

Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:37a, 12/14/23
with independents.

Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:16a, 12/14/23
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
look at the magnitude of movement in independents. 26 points toward Trump.

So interesting that all of these voters are magically starting to like your boy Trump after hating him for years.

Let's see if that holds true on election day. My money says no way, and Biden is going to pull out another one. But I am glad to see you are keeping the faith. I just hope you're not disappointed.

Again.
here's what you're missing: no, they are not magically starting to like him. most voters don't like politicians, even the likeable ones, very much. unlike the idealists (which include the hyper-partisans), the average person votes for people they don't know and don't like all the time. yes, likeability matters, particularly when one candidate outclasses the other in that trait. But that's not the choice this cycle. The choice will be between two historically unlikeable candidates, and that will tend to make the election turn on the issues. The guy with the bigger disadvantage is the incumbent whose policies have screwed the voter. THAT is what the polls are showing.

Democrats pathway to victory looks something like this: somehow, they have to convince voters that abortion is the most important issue of the day. They will sure try hard. And they will (again) max out their turnout of single white women. Not sure that will be enough to swamp everything else, though. We know how bad it is for Trump. it can't get much worse. There literally is nothing that could happen to him that would cause his support to evaporate. His floor is about 44%, and he's flirting with 50, so while I share concerns about him having a low ceiling, there is evidence he does have enough headroom to win.

Biden, though...that dude is the avatar for "soft floor." He is nowhere near his bottom.
Heard a pundit yesterday talking about Trump's numbers. His theory is that Trump not being on TV much (not participating in the debates, etc.) and off social media (that anyone reads at least) is the reason his numbers are so good. Once he starts appearing on TV more when it's him and Biden, and says crazy and ridiculous things (as he always does), and starts appearing on TV when his criminal trials begin, the good polling numbers, especially among independents, will evaporate. In other words, those outside of the die hard supporters will realize why they voted against the guy the last election cycle, and Biden is going to look a lot better than their crazy old uncle.

I suspect he is right. I don't trust these numbers at all, and think that when voters are faced with Biden v. Trump vs. some hypothetical matchup, Trump is going to remind them why they voted for Biden.
Reply Quote
1
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 8:35a, 12/14/23
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
look at the magnitude of movement in independents. 26 points toward Trump.

So interesting that all of these voters are magically starting to like your boy Trump after hating him for years.

Let's see if that holds true on election day. My money says no way, and Biden is going to pull out another one. But I am glad to see you are keeping the faith. I just hope you're not disappointed.

Again.
here's what you're missing: no, they are not magically starting to like him. most voters don't like politicians, even the likeable ones, very much. unlike the idealists (which include the hyper-partisans), the average person votes for people they don't know and don't like all the time. yes, likeability matters, particularly when one candidate outclasses the other in that trait. But that's not the choice this cycle. The choice will be between two historically unlikeable candidates, and that will tend to make the election turn on the issues. The guy with the bigger disadvantage is the incumbent whose policies have screwed the voter. THAT is what the polls are showing.

Democrats pathway to victory looks something like this: somehow, they have to convince voters that abortion is the most important issue of the day. They will sure try hard. And they will (again) max out their turnout of single white women. Not sure that will be enough to swamp everything else, though. We know how bad it is for Trump. it can't get much worse. There literally is nothing that could happen to him that would cause his support to evaporate. His floor is about 44%, and he's flirting with 50, so while I share concerns about him having a low ceiling, there is evidence he does have enough headroom to win.

Biden, though...that dude is the avatar for "soft floor." He is nowhere near his bottom.
Heard a pundit yesterday talking about Trump's numbers. His theory is that Trump not being on TV much (not participating in the debates, etc.) and off social media (that anyone reads at least) is the reason his numbers are so good. Once he starts appearing on TV more when it's him and Biden, and says crazy and ridiculous things (as he always does), and starts appearing on TV when his criminal trials begin, the good polling numbers, especially among independents, will evaporate. In other words, those outside of the die hard supporters will realize why they voted against the guy the last election cycle, and Biden is going to look a lot better than their crazy old uncle.

I suspect he is right. I don't trust these numbers at all, and think that when voters are faced with Biden v. Trump vs. some hypothetical matchup, Trump is going to remind them why they voted for Biden.
it is a very legitimate and well thought out argument, the problem is the vote three years ago was for a guy who was considered the norm a.k.a. the status quo a.k.a. return to standard. That isn't what we got and people are upset about that. Financially speaking they were better under Trump and people are thinking with their wallets right now. Lots of families are hurting financially.

Combine that with the social media wars That are happening that continually paints Biden in a negative image. The let's go Brandon and FJB and all that stuff that you see has an impact in peoples mind over time.
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 8:40a, 12/14/23
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
look at the magnitude of movement in independents. 26 points toward Trump.

So interesting that all of these voters are magically starting to like your boy Trump after hating him for years.

Let's see if that holds true on election day. My money says no way, and Biden is going to pull out another one. But I am glad to see you are keeping the faith. I just hope you're not disappointed.

Again.
here's what you're missing: no, they are not magically starting to like him. most voters don't like politicians, even the likeable ones, very much. unlike the idealists (which include the hyper-partisans), the average person votes for people they don't know and don't like all the time. yes, likeability matters, particularly when one candidate outclasses the other in that trait. But that's not the choice this cycle. The choice will be between two historically unlikeable candidates, and that will tend to make the election turn on the issues. The guy with the bigger disadvantage is the incumbent whose policies have screwed the voter. THAT is what the polls are showing.

Democrats pathway to victory looks something like this: somehow, they have to convince voters that abortion is the most important issue of the day. They will sure try hard. And they will (again) max out their turnout of single white women. Not sure that will be enough to swamp everything else, though. We know how bad it is for Trump. it can't get much worse. There literally is nothing that could happen to him that would cause his support to evaporate. His floor is about 44%, and he's flirting with 50, so while I share concerns about him having a low ceiling, there is evidence he does have enough headroom to win.

Biden, though...that dude is the avatar for "soft floor." He is nowhere near his bottom.
Heard a pundit yesterday talking about Trump's numbers. His theory is that Trump not being on TV much (not participating in the debates, etc.) and off social media (that anyone reads at least) is the reason his numbers are so good. Once he starts appearing on TV more when it's him and Biden, and says crazy and ridiculous things (as he always does), and starts appearing on TV when his criminal trials begin, the good polling numbers, especially among independents, will evaporate. In other words, those outside of the die hard supporters will realize why they voted against the guy the last election cycle, and Biden is going to look a lot better than their crazy old uncle.

I suspect he is right. I don't trust these numbers at all, and think that when voters are faced with Biden v. Trump vs. some hypothetical matchup, Trump is going to remind them why they voted for Biden.
it is a very legitimate and well thought out argument, the problem is the vote three years ago was for a guy who was considered the norm a.k.a. the status quo a.k.a. return to standard. That isn't what we got and people are upset about that. Financially speaking they were better under Trump and people are thinking with their wallets right now. Lots of families are hurting financially.

Combine that with the social media wars That are happening that continually paints Biden in a negative image. The let's go Brandon and FJB and all that stuff that you see has an impact in peoples mind over time.
Don't disagree that Americans were much better off under Trump. I just don't think they vote for the crazy uncle when push comes to shove. Trump is even more a loose cannon than in 2020.
Reply Quote
5
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 9:19a, 12/14/23
Mothra said:
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
look at the magnitude of movement in independents. 26 points toward Trump.

So interesting that all of these voters are magically starting to like your boy Trump after hating him for years.

Let's see if that holds true on election day. My money says no way, and Biden is going to pull out another one. But I am glad to see you are keeping the faith. I just hope you're not disappointed.

Again.
here's what you're missing: no, they are not magically starting to like him. most voters don't like politicians, even the likeable ones, very much. unlike the idealists (which include the hyper-partisans), the average person votes for people they don't know and don't like all the time. yes, likeability matters, particularly when one candidate outclasses the other in that trait. But that's not the choice this cycle. The choice will be between two historically unlikeable candidates, and that will tend to make the election turn on the issues. The guy with the bigger disadvantage is the incumbent whose policies have screwed the voter. THAT is what the polls are showing.

Democrats pathway to victory looks something like this: somehow, they have to convince voters that abortion is the most important issue of the day. They will sure try hard. And they will (again) max out their turnout of single white women. Not sure that will be enough to swamp everything else, though. We know how bad it is for Trump. it can't get much worse. There literally is nothing that could happen to him that would cause his support to evaporate. His floor is about 44%, and he's flirting with 50, so while I share concerns about him having a low ceiling, there is evidence he does have enough headroom to win.

Biden, though...that dude is the avatar for "soft floor." He is nowhere near his bottom.
Heard a pundit yesterday talking about Trump's numbers. His theory is that Trump not being on TV much (not participating in the debates, etc.) and off social media (that anyone reads at least) is the reason his numbers are so good. Once he starts appearing on TV more when it's him and Biden, and says crazy and ridiculous things (as he always does), and starts appearing on TV when his criminal trials begin, the good polling numbers, especially among independents, will evaporate. In other words, those outside of the die hard supporters will realize why they voted against the guy the last election cycle, and Biden is going to look a lot better than their crazy old uncle.

I suspect he is right. I don't trust these numbers at all, and think that when voters are faced with Biden v. Trump vs. some hypothetical matchup, Trump is going to remind them why they voted for Biden.
it is a very legitimate and well thought out argument, the problem is the vote three years ago was for a guy who was considered the norm a.k.a. the status quo a.k.a. return to standard. That isn't what we got and people are upset about that. Financially speaking they were better under Trump and people are thinking with their wallets right now. Lots of families are hurting financially.

Combine that with the social media wars That are happening that continually paints Biden in a negative image. The let's go Brandon and FJB and all that stuff that you see has an impact in peoples mind over time.
Don't disagree that Americans were much better off under Trump. I just don't think they vote for the crazy uncle when push comes to shove. Trump is even more a loose cannon than in 2020.
I agree that he is not the same as 16 or 20.

I also believe that Biden will not be viewed the same as he was in 20. And that race, you had a guy that was considered a standard Washington politician who should do a good job. In 2024, it's known that he has done a terrible job and americans are worse off for it. Biden barely won in 2020, it could easily swing the other way in 2024.
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 9:29a, 12/14/23
Mothra said:
4th and Inches said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
look at the magnitude of movement in independents. 26 points toward Trump.

So interesting that all of these voters are magically starting to like your boy Trump after hating him for years.

Let's see if that holds true on election day. My money says no way, and Biden is going to pull out another one. But I am glad to see you are keeping the faith. I just hope you're not disappointed.

Again.
here's what you're missing: no, they are not magically starting to like him. most voters don't like politicians, even the likeable ones, very much. unlike the idealists (which include the hyper-partisans), the average person votes for people they don't know and don't like all the time. yes, likeability matters, particularly when one candidate outclasses the other in that trait. But that's not the choice this cycle. The choice will be between two historically unlikeable candidates, and that will tend to make the election turn on the issues. The guy with the bigger disadvantage is the incumbent whose policies have screwed the voter. THAT is what the polls are showing.

Democrats pathway to victory looks something like this: somehow, they have to convince voters that abortion is the most important issue of the day. They will sure try hard. And they will (again) max out their turnout of single white women. Not sure that will be enough to swamp everything else, though. We know how bad it is for Trump. it can't get much worse. There literally is nothing that could happen to him that would cause his support to evaporate. His floor is about 44%, and he's flirting with 50, so while I share concerns about him having a low ceiling, there is evidence he does have enough headroom to win.

Biden, though...that dude is the avatar for "soft floor." He is nowhere near his bottom.
Heard a pundit yesterday talking about Trump's numbers. His theory is that Trump not being on TV much (not participating in the debates, etc.) and off social media (that anyone reads at least) is the reason his numbers are so good. Once he starts appearing on TV more when it's him and Biden, and says crazy and ridiculous things (as he always does), and starts appearing on TV when his criminal trials begin, the good polling numbers, especially among independents, will evaporate. In other words, those outside of the die hard supporters will realize why they voted against the guy the last election cycle, and Biden is going to look a lot better than their crazy old uncle.

I suspect he is right. I don't trust these numbers at all, and think that when voters are faced with Biden v. Trump vs. some hypothetical matchup, Trump is going to remind them why they voted for Biden.
it is a very legitimate and well thought out argument, the problem is the vote three years ago was for a guy who was considered the norm a.k.a. the status quo a.k.a. return to standard. That isn't what we got and people are upset about that. Financially speaking they were better under Trump and people are thinking with their wallets right now. Lots of families are hurting financially.

Combine that with the social media wars That are happening that continually paints Biden in a negative image. The let's go Brandon and FJB and all that stuff that you see has an impact in peoples mind over time.
Don't disagree that Americans were much better off under Trump. I just don't think they vote for the crazy uncle when push comes to shove. Trump is even more a loose cannon than in 2020.
The Democrats certainly agree with you, and they are taking quite a gamble.

What people keep missing is that this is not a national contest, it will come down to a few key states. That fact is why the Democrats are sticking with Biden, by the way - Newsome does not poll well in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona or Georgia, which is where the election is really going to be decided.

Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 4:16p, 12/14/23
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Realitybites said:
What happens in Ukraine is irrelevant to the United States. What happens in our hemisphere is not. I supported Reagan's intervention in Grenada and still do. I would have invaded Cuba and crushed Castro's communist revolution about five minutes after it began. I would never have turned the Panama Canal over to anyone even if it meant turning Panama into the 51st state.

The United States does have legitimate geopolitical interests close to home. Meddling in Ukraine (or Taiwan in a world where everything from Harley Davidson parts to antibiotics to the boots our enlisted men and women are given come from China) do not rise to that level. The neocon foreign policy you propose is like sending a cancer patient to the olympics.

I wore the uniform for the better part of a decade. If you are content with your daughter being deployed to Ukraine to fight Russia your understanding of world events is worse than I imagined.
As long as we belong to Nato, what happens in Ukraine matters significantly, as developments there strategically threaten allies we are sworn to defend, with nuclear weapons if necessary.
Malarkey. The idea that Russia fighting to a stalemate in Ukraine "strategically threatens allies" is baseless and unsupported rhetoric. Russia is having to ask Iran for weapons just to keep this thing going, for goodness sake. Iran.

You neocons have lost it. What do you think your boy Trump is going to do about this situation?

Well, that wasn't the scenario I argued, counselor. Ending the war at current battle lines is, however, a clear and significant improvement in Russian strategic position (insert Liddel-Hart's Maxim here.). That incentivizes resumption of conflict as soon as Russia rebuilds. We can and should fund Ukrainian victory, complete withdrawal of Russian armies from Ukrainian sovereign territory. It won't be hard. Russia cannot keep up its supply chain, which as you note, is quite ragged.

As you alluded, Russia is struggling. Why on earth should we let them win, when their defeat is of such significant advantage to NATO? That is not a sink cost argument; it's a "we have them by the nuts" argument.


Sounds all good in a fairytale world where we "have them by the nuts." But we don't. Reality is Ukraine doesn't have them by the anything and likely never will. Russia has solidified its positions and isn't giving them up - just like the precious territories it took many years ago. And as we have seen repeatedly, Ukraine doesn't have the ability to take them back.

The idea that continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons will change that years long dynamic is complete and utter foolishness. But you want to keep sinking billions into a losing proposition. Hilarious.

Reality:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4305675-ukraine-is-waking-up-to-reality/amp/

This all ends if Trump gets elected, FYI.

Russians are attacking relentlessly, suffering casualties at 5-6x the rate of Ukrainians. They cannot sustain that, and are making exactly the bet you are - that US resolve will falter.
Read the military assessments. Read the articles. Educate yourself. The Russians are entrenched in their newly acquired territory, and aren't going to budge. All of the military assessments are now throwing cold water on the idea Ukraine has the ability to retain them.

How many billions of dollars, years and lives would you like to pour into Ukraine somehow re-acquiring their territory? It's been almost 10 years since the first invasion, and none of that territory has been reclaimed? Should we wait another 10 years? 20? 30? How many billions? Trillions?

And the same Russia that can't defeat little ol' Ukraine is somehow a threat to our allies? Do you realize how laughable and illogical that position sounds?
I think it is you who are not well read on the situation. Ukraine is on the defensive and Russia is on the attack from the Dnieper all the way to the Russian border = particularly at Adiivka with mindless human wave attacks incurring shocking levels of loss of personnel and equipment. Even the Orkhiv salient has turned static, with Russia posting occasional tactical advances (of feet/yards) a few days a week. Russia cannot sustain this rate of loss, which is averaging close to 1000/day. The only front where Ukraine is advancing is in Kherson, where they are incrementally increasing their bridgehead, with cautious advances against spent Russian forces.

What we see in the aggregate is what we've seen all along = Ukraine being very cautious with its troops and equipment in tactical level assaults, then taking defensive positions to await the predictable Russian human wave counter-attacks. Ukraine has realized its limitations and is playing within them. Russia, on the other hand, is desperate and counting on a collapse of Western aid.

This is a war of attrition. In wars of attrition, things change slowly, then suddenly. As long as western support continues, Ukraine has a far more reliable supply chain. Russia is at far higher risk of collapse than Ukraine.

You say: "it is laughable that Russia is a threat to invade Nato, because it cannot even defeat Ukraine." That analysis is junior high school debate team one dimensional, only dealing with the scenario of Russian invasion, as if that is the only threat Nato faces. Russia is a threat to drag Nato into severe instability. We have never stationed Nato troops in any of the front-line states. If one of them falls into political instability (as did Belarus and Ukraine......hint, hint...), the risks of conflict are high. Russian proximity to those states does affect their ability to influence events, directly or indirectly. But even worse is the foremost threat your analysis ignores = miscalculation. Russia severely miscalculated in its Ukraine policy, on multiple levels. It assumed Ukraine would collapse, and that Nato would not have the will to respond (and as a result, Russia is now in an existential position). It also severely miscalculated its own abilities. They are most certainly going to lose their goal of subsuming Ukraine back into the Russian state, or even of a Plan B return of Ukraine back into the Russian orbit. The only gain they will have is a province or three. Some would call that a loss, a Ukrainian victory of sorts. LOOK WHAT THAT VICTORY COST UKRAINE. And look what it cost Nato. $$$$$$ and blood. (and of course, Liddell-Hart would call it outright Russian victory.) Mostly though, that Russia is no match for Nato (by our assumption) does not bear at all on the question of what Russia will do. Russia, in fact, has a well-documented history of great power miscalculation = overestimating its own abilities and underestimating the capabilities of its adversaries. Russia invades Nato, it will get smoked. But look at the risks and costs Nato will face securing such a victory. Cities destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of deaths. My daughter dodging arty rounds. The ONLY way we avoid that is to keep Russian armies IN Russia. And what we are paying to support Ukrainian efforts to drive Russian armies back to Russia is a bargain. We've already bought time, just with sheer destruction of Russian troops & material.

Russian armies stationed in Ukraine is a severe deterioration in the security posture of NATO. It's worth way more than we're spending to keep them out.
Can you provide me with one military assessment that says Ukraine can achieve anything other than a stalemate? If so, I would love to see it. Everything I have read has said, even with the current multi-billion dollar military support, Ukraine has little to no chance of taking back Crimea and the Donbas. It just isn't happening without overwhelming air support. And we know that we are not going to be providing air support for Ukraine.

That being the case, what's the end game here? Keep supplying billions to Ukraine only so that it can remain in a stalemate and perpetual state of war with Russia?
Reply Quote
1
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 4:24p, 12/14/23
Mothra: "Can you provide me with one military assessment that says Ukraine can achieve anything other than a stalemate? "

I have friends in Intel who told me several ways Russia can lose, giving Ukraine a de facto win.

The problem is that those scenarios all involve outside involvement by interested parties such as the United States, and that means escalation with all the risk from such an action.

What worries me is who in the US hierarchy is making the go/no-go decision in such an escalation.
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:39p, 12/14/23
Reply Quote
Jack Bauer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:59p, 12/14/23
"Annex Canada"

"Shoot the First Lady"

"Throw Opponents into Jail"

"Make everyone salute him"

"terminate the constitution"

"create MASS internment camps"

"assassinate Generals"

Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jack Bauer • 6:22p, 12/14/23
Jack Bauer said:
"Annex Canada"

"Shoot the First Lady"

"Throw Opponents into Jail"

"Make everyone salute him"

"create MASS internment camps"

"assassinate Generals"





Reply Quote
3
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 8:40p, 12/14/23
Redbrickbear said:
not a bad idea..
Adopt-a-Bear 2024

#90 COOPER LANZ ( DL )
CLASS Junior
HT/WT 6' 3", 288 lbs


#50 KAIAN ROBERTS-DAY ( DL )
CLASS Sophomore
HT/WT 6' 3", 273 lbs
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 8:14a, 12/15/23
Oldbear83 said:
Mothra: "Can you provide me with one military assessment that says Ukraine can achieve anything other than a stalemate? "

I have friends in Intel who told me several ways Russia can lose, giving Ukraine a de facto win.

The problem is that those scenarios all involve outside involvement by interested parties such as the United States, and that means escalation with all the risk from such an action.

What worries me is who in the US hierarchy is making the go/no-go decision in such an escalation.
Indeed, every scenario I have seen that says Ukraine can take back the Donbas and Crimea includes US/NATO involvement in the form of air support, at a minimum. It is otherwise completely incapable of reclaiming large swaths of territory on its own, as we have seen with its offensive this past summer. And we know that to the extent we provide air support, we are flirting with nuclear war. So that's not going to happen, outside of some doomsday prognostication.

That being the case, it is a legitimate question to ask of whiterock and the other neocons, what is the end game here? Do we keep throwing billions in borrowed monies so that the parties can fight to a stalemate? In other words, do we simply use Ukrainian lives to serve the strategic interests of the U.S. in a weakened Russia that is in a perpetual state of war with Ukraine? Or is the end game, Ukraine must take back all territory, which of course will never happen without us stepping up military support in the form of air strikes?

When there is no realistic goal, we typically end up in a quagmire.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 9:40a, 12/15/23
Mothra said:
Oldbear83 said:
Mothra: "Can you provide me with one military assessment that says Ukraine can achieve anything other than a stalemate? "

I have friends in Intel who told me several ways Russia can lose, giving Ukraine a de facto win.

The problem is that those scenarios all involve outside involvement by interested parties such as the United States, and that means escalation with all the risk from such an action.

What worries me is who in the US hierarchy is making the go/no-go decision in such an escalation.
Indeed, every scenario I have seen that says Ukraine can take back the Donbas and Crimea includes US/NATO involvement in the form of air support, at a minimum. It is otherwise completely incapable of reclaiming large swaths of territory on its own, as we have seen with its offensive this past summer. And we know that to the extent we provide air support, we are flirting with nuclear war. So that's not going to happen, outside of some doomsday prognostication.

That being the case, it is a legitimate question to ask of whiterock and the other neocons, what is the end game here? Do we keep throwing billions in borrowed monies so that the parties can fight to a stalemate? In other words, do we simply use Ukrainian lives to serve the strategic interests of the U.S. in a weakened Russia that is in a perpetual state of war with Ukraine? Or is the end game, Ukraine must take back all territory, which of course will never happen without us stepping up military support in the form of air strikes?

When there is no realistic goal, we typically end up in a quagmire.
Politicians rarely make decisions based on the best military outcome. It's far more common for politicians to make decisions based on the political optics. 'Supporting our friends' is a very common political theme when speaking to use of the military.
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jack Bauer • 10:00a, 12/15/23
Jack Bauer said:
"Annex Canada"
Invading Canada and deposing Trudeau and invading Mexico, exterminating the cartels, and enforcing a DMZ at it's southern end would do more for America's national security than sending our entire GDP to Ukraine every year, forever.
Reply Quote
2
90sBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:23a, 12/15/23
I would take Canada and then go south all the way to the Panama Canal. If Risk taught me anything, it's that you want full control of a continent for the extra continent bonus.
Reply Quote
1
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:34a, 12/15/23
What incentive would Trump have to debate anyone in the GOP? He's crushing everyone without debating.

Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:01a, 12/15/23
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 11:38a, 12/15/23
boognish_bear said:

Good, we don't need two people with the exact same foreign policy in the race.

Defense contractors need to focus their massive dominations on one candidate
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 11:43a, 12/15/23
Realitybites said:
Jack Bauer said:
"Annex Canada"
Invading Canada and deposing Trudeau and invading Mexico, exterminating the cartels, and enforcing a DMZ at it's southern end would do more for America's national security than sending our entire GDP to Ukraine every year, forever.

Not to mention taking out the commies in Cuba who have been keeping that fertile agricultural island and its people in 1950s poverty for 70 years.

Or getting rid of the socialist-lefts in Venezuela....destroying the country (now invading a neighbor) all while keeping the population in poverty even though they sit on 300 billion barrels of oil. Possibly the largest proven oil reserves on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves


Instead we focus on Ukraine and Israel.....
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 12:55p, 12/15/23
boognish_bear said:



Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:41p, 12/15/23
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:07p, 12/15/23
Reply Quote
2
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 7:38a, 12/16/23
Redbrickbear said:
If he comes out with such a plan, that will help resolve the three horse race it has come down to for me (Trump-Desantis-RFK) and put me solidly in the Desantis camp.
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 90sBear • 7:41a, 12/16/23
90sBear said:
I would take Canada and then go south all the way to the Panama Canal. If Risk taught me anything, it's that you want full control of a continent for the extra continent bonus.

The southern tip of Mexico is quite narrow. Extending our empire to its southern border would allow us to easily control/occupy Panama without having to deal with the problems in the rest of central America and that would allow us to exploit Venezuela/Guyana more effectively for its oil resources. There's no reason why imperial America should tolerate failed narco states on its border.

While we're at it, we should ban the import of all Japanese, Korean, and European cars. The residents of a proper empire's client states buy our products, not the other way around. We should also change the law which prevents a president from serving more than two terms. An empire needs an emperor. Oh, and dissolve the senate. The handful of good ones can become Legates.

Enough boomer foreign policy already. If we're going to empire, let's EMPIRE. Forget aircraft carriers. Lets build a death star.
Reply Quote
1
6 edits
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 8:42a, 12/16/23
Oldbear83 said:
Mothra: "Can you provide me with one military assessment that says Ukraine can achieve anything other than a stalemate? "

I have friends in Intel






Gotta luv the internet.
Reply Quote
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 8:42a, 12/16/23
Remember, the Left told us that Trump would get us involved in numerous foreign wars. After these last seven years, it is pretty obvious to who the warmonger is.

The Biden administration has absolutely destroyed U.S. foreign policy. Trump invading Canada and Mexico is just another silly, unhinged, cray cray conspiracy theory talking point from the Left.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Reply Quote
4
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:14p, 12/16/23
Reply Quote
1
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:05p, 12/17/23
Reply Quote
First Page Last Page
Page 62 of 305 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.