SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - US Politics Thread 2021-24

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - US Politics Thread 2021-24 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=248184)

Of the 7 million migrants that ICE released while their cases are being processed, 663,000 have criminal histories, 13,000 were convicted of homicide, 16,000 of sexual assault, and 1,845 face homicide charges.

Wait, so when Trump says:
"They're not sending their best"
"They're emptying their prisons"
"They're emptying their insane asylums"

He's right?

https://i.ibb.co/rZxm43z/IMG-0698.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/DgWQ8np/IMG-0699.jpg https://i.ibb.co/7K2tvrR/IMG-0700.jpg

Quote:

“There is not one member of the military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world for the first time this century.”

I wonder if Harris is aware of this? :har:

Three U.S. Navy warships shot down nearly two dozen incoming missiles and drones launched by Iran's rebel army in Yemen earlier today while transiting the narrow entrance to the Red Sea.

None of the American warships were hit and no sailors on board were injured, U.S officials tell Fox.

I’m sure those Squids getting shot at by Houthi missiles are wondering about that too.

https://youtu.be/2yn4N7E6168

Toke a look at the polls. Harris is in the lead, with only 2.8 %. A lot can change before and during the election day.

It baffle me-The Americans have been living under Democrats at the wheel for the last 3½ years and what have they got ?

I don't think it will be better with Trump. I say USA have reached
the point-of-no-return.

Of course you could say:

With Harris the situation will get better or worse

With Trump the situation will get better or worse

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2927778)

Do not look at polls it is still 37 days till the election anything can happen maybe a real saviour descents on us instead an orange one it is still 50% change for both sides.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dargo (Post 2927783)

Do not look at polls it is still 37 days till the election anything can happen maybe a real saviour descents on us instead an orange one it is still 50% change for both sides.

Which I also wrote " A lot can change before and during the election day."

2.8 percentage is within the margin of error.

Another thing-Some, if not many, voters will not admit they are going to put their vote on Trump, so instead they say they are going to vote for Harris.

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2927785)

Another thing-Some, if not many, voters will not admit they are going to put their vote on Trump, so instead they say they are going to vote for Harris.

Markus

It always depends on how you formulate the question; you can control the outcome with this.

This might be of interest to some who do take an interest in the conduct of the upcoming election; I found this program on PBS when I was clicking around the TV channels last night and was rather impressed by how the whole program was conducted; the participants were persons who actually hold, or have held, the positions most likely to be in play in the way the election might play out and how it might be perceived by the voting public; this gives a very good insight to the actual issues and possible reactions to hypothetical outcomes come election night; it is well worth watching...

How Would You Respond to These Ethical Dilemmas? | DEADLOCK: An Election Story | Full Episode | PBS --

It’s Election Day in the fictional state of Middlevania. You’re a poll worker, excited to do your civic duty, when suddenly you’re confronted with a series of challenges that will lead you to wrestle with what is legal… and what is right.

This election dilemma unfolds in DEADLOCK: an election story, where UC Davis School of Law professor Aaron Tang guides a panel of influential figures from legal, political, media and cultural spheres through complex ethical dilemmas based on a real-life scenario. The special encourages civil dialogue and critical thinking in an era dominated by polarizing debates.

The producers would like to thank the Columbia School of Journalism for its creative contributions to the program.

Filmed on location at The New-York Historical Society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up2pSBUdswk

<O>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dargo (Post 2927788)

It always depends on how you formulate the question; you can control the outcome with this.

Read some comments in Ukraine matters latest video(Can be seen in our Ukraine thread)

This made me come to following conclusion. Those who vote Dems are doing this because they are:

1. Genuin Democrats
2. Avoid Trump becoming President
3. Voting blue for continue support for Ukraine.

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2927778)

Toke a look at the polls. Harris is in the lead, with only 2.8 %. A lot can change before and during the election day.

It baffle me-The Americans have been living under Democrats at the wheel for the last 3Â½ years and what have they got ?

I don't think it will be better with Trump. I say USA have reached
the point-of-no-return.

Of course you could say:

With Harris the situation will get better or worse

With Trump the situation will get better or worse

Markus

I must say, It will not matter Denmark ! .You are a NATO country. And what Donald Trump will do is simple.The United States will not fund or support the Ukraine war.The NATO members who want to continue to support Ukraine to the very end may do so on their own.Now is the time to show the world NATO can survive without the United States. You will still have 31 member countries to support Ukraine. Easy peasy for 31 countries against 1 right?

Hell yes, When the Donald says I will stop this war! He means our country will no longer give military support to Ukraine and our taxpayers will not be paying their governments paychecks! There are 31 other NATO countries and if they want to fight to the last Ukrainian against Russia then that will be their choice.You do not need the USA to fight for your Democracy. We want to see NATO and Europe fight for its Democracy. Without the USA.

And let me tell you the taxpayers here in America, Know that our NATO allies can carry the burden on their own.If they so wish to do so.And while you are fighting for Democracy over there.We are going to get our farmers back to farming.Fresh vegetables at road side stands and in our markets again.We are going to have our own chickens again and our cattle will be farting as they graze across the vast plains of our midwest and anywhere an American can raise and graze them. We will have pigs again in abundance, bacon with your morning breakfast and Ribs again on grill on the weekends.And a nice beef steak with a big fat baked potato. :Kaleun_Cheers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dargo (Post 2927788)

It always depends on how you formulate the question; you can control the outcome with this.

Well,Sun Tzu's Destroyer theory did work and those ounces of Marines and Soldiers cleared the entire Islands of Iwo Jima.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorpet (Post 2927819)

Well,Sun Tzu's Destroyer theory did work and those ounces of Marines and Soldiers cleared the entire Islands of Iwo Jima.

Are u doing some Andy Kaufmanesque bit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET2SN (Post 2927884)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2_XaiYyE6Q

:hmmm:

Here is a thought, this endorsement as well as anyone else's makes little difference to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 2927906)

Here is a thought, this endorsement as well as anyone else's makes little difference to me.

Appears you’re not the only one.

What’s in a Name? Not Always ‘Senior Leader’

COMMENTARY

By John D. Warren
September 25, 2024

Quote:

This week, I ran across a letter that in its first 48 hours was quoted and referenced across dozens of news outlets and various sites on the Internet. The document is from the National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A), a group that presents itself as “individuals who served in various senior leadership positions that include all six military branches, elected federal and state offices, and various government departments and agencies.”

My comments here are not meant to be an endorsement of former President Donald Trump, nor are they a statement for or against Vice President Kamala Harris. Neither should they be construed as a critique of any person who has chosen to endorse the former president or the vice president.

On personal principle, I do not endorse, nor have I ever endorsed, any candidate for any office in any election. I do not expect anyone else to hold to this same position. As a citizen of this great republic, I embrace the freedom to express – or not to express – my political preferences.

This is simply one retired military officer’s view of the pretentiousness of the name (“national security leaders”) taken by a group of people who have chosen to endorse Kamala Harris.

By way of introduction, I will state that I served in the U.S. Air Force for 27 years, with assignments at stations all over the world. I entered the service at the lowest enlisted rank and retired as a lieutenant colonel.

During those years, I copied Morse code supporting intelligence collection during the Cold War, interpreted sensitive satellite imagery, graduated from the Naval Postgraduate School with a master’s degree in international relations, prepared briefings and analyses for flag rank officers and secretaries of defense, was selected to teach Aerospace Studies at the prestigious University of Notre Dame, deployed with Special Operations Command Central for the first Gulf war, represented American interests in two civil wars (the former Yugoslavia and Angola), commanded the largest squadron in the USAF, served as director of joint operations at one of the National Security Agency’s largest intelligence collection sites, and after retirement from active duty served as a contractor planning and supporting hundreds of missions in Afghanistan and Iraq during the global war on terror.

When the average American comes across the phrase, “Over 700 former national security leaders have endorsed Harris,” they probably think that those 700 people actually conducted or influenced, at various times, the real national security of the country.

As I read down the list of those 741 individuals who held “senior leadership positions,” I recognized the names of many flag rank officers, one of whom was my commander’s commander while I was on active duty; a few former senators and congressmen; along with a handful of former high-ranking civilians who actually did influence and lead national security. Certainly many of them, military and civilians, were and are patriots who served our nation well and made significant contributions to our national security.

Then there were literally hundreds of retired military officers and civilians who were (or claimed to be) part of the greater Department of Defense effort or worked for other executive agencies, their actual connection to national security more tenuous.

But what came across as especially humorous to me were descriptions such as “spouse of former security official”; retired senior enlisted men and women; individuals with the honorific of “ambassador” with no explanation of ambassador of what; a large number of “former acting (fill in the blank)” titles; and so forth. (For context, the secretary of any department might decide to name an “acting” secretary while he or she undergoes a dental procedure that requires anesthesia. The total time of that status could be under half a day.)

As I read aloud a few of the descriptors behind some of the names, my wife of over 50 years (full disclosure: my wife is senior copy editor for RealClearPolitics) said something to the effect of, “Even with more than a dozen moves in 27 years and a lot of knowledge about the military, I would never think to sign on as a National Security Leader!”

Once again, endorse whomever you like, but to tie yourself to a group with a clearly overreaching name seems pretentious. It might seem impressive to read that these 741 signatories held “senior leadership positions,” but many didn’t. In sports they call it “padding the stats.”

John Warren, USAF Lt. Col. (Ret.), served for over 40 years as an intelligence officer and in other defense-related positions. He considers his most important roles as father of nine, grandfather of 29, and great-grandfather of two.