Links?
I've not seen any stories that reference sending older weapons. I have seem stories where Biden did not send certain weapons which he thought might piss off the Russians.
Democrats BEST course of action...
- Thread starter IUNorth
- Start date
Links?
I've not seen any stories that reference sending older weapons. I have seem stories where Biden did not send certain weapons which he thought might piss off the Russians.
Then again, this information raises some problematic questions. I'm not saying I'm falling into the conspiracy pit. I'm not and am not suggesting that Wray's information means that anybody should.
But, I'm not going to lie, there is some really troubling info here.
I was in this business, but it’s been reported numerous times. We can’t get new weapons off the factory floor and to Ukraine fast enough, it isn’t possible, it comes from stocks - ours, NATO countries and others, like South Korea.
No. I'm saying they allowed it to happen because of their incompetence and their indifference. They were more committed to DEI than to having the best SS possible.
They haven't fired the SS Director and won't. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Last edited:
I googled it and did not see it. I did see several references to us sending Ukraine advanced weapon systems. And I did see reference to not sending certain types of long-range artillery and our most advanced airplanes so as bot to anger the Russians.
This is no WW2 lend lease operation.
Of all those, only the elapsed time is truly troubling without more info.
Encrypted comms sounds so ominous, but WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are ubiquitous. I have RCS by default on my droid with google messages and iMessage is also encrypted.
I’m on my phone, but it’s often referenced. Most is coming from stocks. Other countries have bought these systems new as well and they wait years for delivery (basically, they have a spot in line) and some are ready for delivery and we’ve arranged with these countries to wait longer and diverted new stock to Ukraine. The most recent I remember reading about were some systems that were earmarked for Saudi or UAE, I think, were diverted. Those may have been air defense. The Abrams tanks we’ve sent were older models from stock and the US Army and Marines will get newer better models.
“An anonymous official served up the intel community’s quadrennial hysteria about Kremlin online activity aimed at U.S. voters. This activity is so microscopic amid the social-media deluge that the only people who notice it are….CIA and NSA nerds.”
Only the elapsed time? Only?!
Seeing this, it's going to be difficult for me to accept an explanation for why they allowed Trump to take the stage without first at least encountering and questioning Crooks.
The guy subsequently brought a rifle -- in clear view -- onto the roof. And he first got on their radar an hour prior to this -- enough so that they photographed him.
I get that hindsight is 20/20. And I'm sure it's not uncommon for people at these events to be suspicious enough to warrant a photograph. But the snipers themselves had eyes on him for 20 minutes!
That's worth a raised eyebrow, I guess. But, as I've been saying, it's going to be really hard for me to believe he was collaborating with anybody else....or, if he was, that it was anybody else who was anything more than some other awkward kid.
As hooky said (and I agree) even WhatsApp and other communication platforms offer end-to-end encryption. It's a pretty common thing for people who are halfway technically competent. I wouldn't take this to mean that he was talking with somebody else about the attack.
Not that it isn't a possibility. It's just not much in the way of evidence to that end.
They did when I retired, but you made me look. Apparently they decided to move away from tanks about 4 years ago and may have none left now. I missed that one!
What I read was that he had a range finder and the snipers locked eyes with him, presumably because they saw he had a range finder. This was when he was within the smaller area that was protected. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates that the concerns other officers had were communicated to the snipers.
I did see speculation that the snipers were denied permission to take him out. I would not be surprised at all if that's true....
Well, the DHS' Inspector General is going to investigate this. That seems entirely in order here. And I'd much rather it be done that way than in some Congressional committee where those monkeys will just fling turds at each other across the room for the cameras.
I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if I cover a point someone else made. My initial thought was that the Dems should nominate Josh Shapiro who is the extremely popular Governor (65% approval) of a crucial battleground state. I also think he would do very well in both WI and MI for the same reasons he is so popular in PA. By my reasoning he could win those 3 states and thus the election...
But I guess name recognition is a major stumbling block,and there is a sense his time is 2028. I still follow Prof Lichtman (who isn't making an official prediciton till after the DNC, and he still believes the Dems are in good position. He doesn't put much stock in polls (like me) and when you consider how reliable the ones posted by members of this board were in 2022,2023,and 2024 (so Far) it's easy to see why.
But Lichtman makes an essential point, and points out it has to be Biden or Harris. Because 2 of the keys the Dems have in their column Incumbency/ no official opposition turn on the candidate being a member of the current Admin. Lichtman points out that since 1900 the in power admin has lost every election whenever there was an open seat (no incumbent) nominated thru a primary. Clinton in 2016 being the most recent example...
He believes that Biden is still option A, with Harris being plan B, with the provision that Biden also resigns and throws his support behind her. That means in Nov she would be the incumbent with an established,if short, record to run on. If Biden releases his delegates to her, then the Dems preserve both the Incumbency and no primary key.
My biggest disappointment with Biden is the missed oppty he had at the debate to prosecute the case vs Trump. He should have hammered Trump for every lie he told, as well as brought up Project 2025. I believe Harris is capable and would have done that, and she'd have run rings around Trump.
The thing is people say they don't like their choices, want someone fresh and younger, and Harris gives the Dems the ability to confront both those issues. She is the only one who would have access to all the raised campaign funds, and as a member of the current Admin she would be able to share in taking credit for the achievments that Dems and Independents appreciate from the Admin without having the old age baggage of Biden.
I also think they should nominate Shapiro for VP, and take advantage of the mistake Trump made with Vance. He would really help the ticket in PA, as even Trumpers voted for him in the election vs ultra-MAGA Mastriano. And I believe in comparison with Vance Shapiro comes off much more measured and palatible to moderates and Independents...
Harris is a total moron. There’s not a single redeeming thing about her. Dump her and pick Shapiro or someone competent
I think you need some public testimony. My confidence in DHS is very low. If I had my druthers, it would ONLY testimony with no speeches or posturing. Unfortunately, that will never happen.
I've watched her for a few years and agree there is not one redeeming quality about her. However, in political terms, she knows how to race-bait and she loves herself some abortions (Remember when the Dems used to talk about making abortion save and rare? They never talk about the rare part any more). She's effective and serious when talking about race and abortion, because she's comfortable about those topics. She's Laffin' Kamala about everything else, because she's clueless about everything else. She could talk about crime because apparently she was a pretty effective prosecutor.....but the Dems don't want effective prosecutors so she can't talk about that.
Twitter alone, in just one purge out of several, deleted 200 accounts linked to a Russian group that had been purged from Facebook earlier, having bought $100,000 worth of ads to sow political unrest and manipulate U.S. voters during the presidential election. there were additional deletions and additional Russian bad actors. Sure, it's hard to tell the reach precisely and to tell how much legit American right-leaning GOP posters repeating the same crap were influenced by them, but it was part of the disinformation effort.
Twitter removed 200 Russian accounts that targeted Facebook users during election
Twitter also said Kremlin-backed news outlet Russia Today spent $274,100 on U.S. ads in 2016.
www.usatoday.com
Both Eastern Europe and the Middle East are extremely complicated. But it seems strange that on one hand you seem to side with the IDF who invaded Gaza, but on the other hand you side with Russia, which invaded Ukraine.No mention of Putin being a scumbag in any of your posts, but yet at one point you refer to NATO and Zelensky as corrupt...
Why is that? I mean as horrific as the butchery Hamas engaged in was, it pales in comparison to the number and range of atrocities Putin has sanctioned in Ukraine. There were days early on when the amount of Ukrainians butchered in a day equaled or exceeded the number of Israelis killed in the Hamas attacks.
And let's not even bring up the amounts of people slaughtered by Israeli forces In Gaza. Yet Ukraine fighting for their very existence elicits no sympathy from you. It seems you think the Israelis (and presumably Russians) should be allowed to run roughshod over the people whose territory they have invaded...
It's become readily apparent that Bibi and his cronies are intentionally wrecking any chance for a cease fire, so they can drag it out past the election, in a brazen attempt to assist Trump. The ironic thing is that GAZA has cost the Dems support because they view Biden as "pro-Israel".
But it is actually Trump who is pro-Genocide to the extent that he's a far greater threat to a peaceful settlemet in Gaza than Biden is. This is the issue I have with people who attack Biden over GAZA, they just seem incredibly naive over what a disaster a Trump presidency would be for Palestinians.
I was told on January 6th, 2021 that shooting violent protestors was a patriotic act....
The encrypted communications is....weird. Be interested to know who was on the other end of that.
Lots of evidence points to Crooks being a right winger, including classmates who say he was an outspoken conservative in school debates as well as neighbors who remember MAGA/Trump signs in the yard.
Why would anyone on the left want to kill Trump? All the attempt on his life did was boost his popularity. And to paraphrase Alex Jones, if they kill Trump it's better for us. We'll just replace him with someone better (for us)...
That and virtually NO social media presence is very suspicious, in my opinion.
What 20 year old has NO social media whatsoever? He wasn’t interested in girls? No friends at all?
It’s really weird to me that we’re this far away from the event and there is STILL not a hint as to what this fools motive was.
An adjustment to what I think is now their best course of action, as it appears its a very real possibility that Biden will back out/be forced out. This is assuming THAT is true... if its not, obviously everything I write after this is null and void.
1. Have some awareness of the situation. You now have a solidified and strengthened Trump campaign to face. He's not going to be impacted or adversely affected by his legal issues. Its unlikely he's going to "beat himself". So, if you want an actual chance to win, you have to run someone that will both energize the Democratic base, but also give moderates on both sides, and Independents, a reason to vote for the Dem.
2. DO NOT allow the narrative to be people like Pelosi are the ones that are finally making these calls. I've seen reports this morning that she's now calling for Biden to back out. I'm an independent, and as much as a dislike Trump, Pelosi isn't really much better for me. If the narrative ends up being people like Pelosi are now in charge of all this, they're pulling the strings, and they end up with Harris, or someone even more progressive as the replacement...they have NO chance. This approach might solidify the campaign, and make it marginally close in the battle ground states. But it doesn't give them a chance.
3. Biden isn't the ONLY problem right now. "They" need to have an awareness of that. The far left IS just as unpopular as MAGA is. Someway, somehow, they need to find a candidate that reaches well in to the far left on some important issues...but overall, isn't viewed or fully associated as a far left progressive.
4. My suggested ticket. Wes Moore for President. Gretchen Whitmer for Vice President. Don't even respond MAGA types...none of this is for you. Wes Moore is young enough that he doesn't have an established track record as a far left progressive. Losing a governorship isn't as damaging right now as losing a Senator. And I think Moore is/would be strong enough, and eventually popular enough, that a campaign against Trump wouldn't end his political career. He could run again in 28 if the campaign was ran well, and he lost. He's also young. The contrast that ticket would provide against Trump/Vance couldn't possibly be more stark. And I think that is probably the Dems ONLY chance at this point. A ticket that is seen as an obviously different approach from Trump AND Biden. But that isn't some established Washington far left progressive.
5. Use this ticket as a chance to "rebrand" your entire party. Hammer and talk about important issues like abortion, have good policies for immigration, economic issues like taxes and social security.
I know they won't do this. I know it's going to either be Biden or Harris. But making a historically big move to move away from Biden...only to take the "safe" route of Harris...not only won't it work...but it won't help them down ballot...and it won't do anything to improve their perception among non progressive voters.
1. Have some awareness of the situation. You now have a solidified and strengthened Trump campaign to face. He's not going to be impacted or adversely affected by his legal issues. Its unlikely he's going to "beat himself". So, if you want an actual chance to win, you have to run someone that will both energize the Democratic base, but also give moderates on both sides, and Independents, a reason to vote for the Dem.
2. DO NOT allow the narrative to be people like Pelosi are the ones that are finally making these calls. I've seen reports this morning that she's now calling for Biden to back out. I'm an independent, and as much as a dislike Trump, Pelosi isn't really much better for me. If the narrative ends up being people like Pelosi are now in charge of all this, they're pulling the strings, and they end up with Harris, or someone even more progressive as the replacement...they have NO chance. This approach might solidify the campaign, and make it marginally close in the battle ground states. But it doesn't give them a chance.
3. Biden isn't the ONLY problem right now. "They" need to have an awareness of that. The far left IS just as unpopular as MAGA is. Someway, somehow, they need to find a candidate that reaches well in to the far left on some important issues...but overall, isn't viewed or fully associated as a far left progressive.
4. My suggested ticket. Wes Moore for President. Gretchen Whitmer for Vice President. Don't even respond MAGA types...none of this is for you. Wes Moore is young enough that he doesn't have an established track record as a far left progressive. Losing a governorship isn't as damaging right now as losing a Senator. And I think Moore is/would be strong enough, and eventually popular enough, that a campaign against Trump wouldn't end his political career. He could run again in 28 if the campaign was ran well, and he lost. He's also young. The contrast that ticket would provide against Trump/Vance couldn't possibly be more stark. And I think that is probably the Dems ONLY chance at this point. A ticket that is seen as an obviously different approach from Trump AND Biden. But that isn't some established Washington far left progressive.
5. Use this ticket as a chance to "rebrand" your entire party. Hammer and talk about important issues like abortion, have good policies for immigration, economic issues like taxes and social security.
I know they won't do this. I know it's going to either be Biden or Harris. But making a historically big move to move away from Biden...only to take the "safe" route of Harris...not only won't it work...but it won't help them down ballot...and it won't do anything to improve their perception among non progressive voters.
Cosmicbot & Outside Shooter are leading indicators for the state of the party it seems.
I think Wes Moore is a great candidate...in 2028. Right now he has the same issue of all the other up and comers (like Josh Shapiro) and that is the lack of name recognition. I also think that if the Dems go away from Lichtman's keys and nominate someone not directly involved with the Admin, it's essential that the nominee has to be from a swing state. Shapiro has another plus, in that he is Jewish but isn't Zionist. So he might be more palatable to Arab members of the coalition while at the same time shoring up support among some Jewish voters .
But ultimately I think Lichtman provides the best blueprint. When he developed his keys he went back and analyzed every US election from Lincoln's re-election campaign forward. He developed a consensous of "keys" that were common among all of the winners, and used those consensous keys to predict winners starting with Reagan in 1984. The relevance to Biden is that both Lincoln and Reagan faced long odds to win re-election. When Lichtman predicted that Reagan would win, he made that prediciton in 1982 in the middle of the worst depression since the 20s, with RR very unpopular and polls showing 60% of voters felt he was too old to run again.
But Lichtman applied the keys and based on that he predicted that Reagan would be re-elected. I just watched his bi weekly podcast the other night, and there is no doubt in my mind that following the DNC without a major shift he would pick Biden to win. His analysis is that people don't vote based on a campaign, but rather how they feel about the Admin. He goes stricly by the keys he developed by studying election results for basically 100 yrs. and applying a pre-established set of Parameters.
He's already given the Incumbency and contest keys to Biden based on an incumbent President running unopposed. But unless they go with Harris (or Biden) the dems would lose those 2 keys, and Trump would only need 4 more, instead of the total of 6 he needs overall to secure Lichtman's prediction.
It would also put the Dems in the unenviable position of trying to become the only Dem or GOP Admin since 1900 that as the party in power won the Presidency when the seat was open and there was a contested primary. I imagine a reason for that is that incumbency means either as the POTUS or VP the country has already voted for and elected the person at the top of the ticket.
Haven't read through the Lichtman stuff, to be honest.
But it seems to me, right now, using historical references as any sort of guide will probably be much less effective than its really ever been. I honestly don't care what these keys are...if they are saying Biden will, or even can, beat Trump (as things stand today), they're misguided, and probably not worth the read. Meaning, there aren't any keys in there that could account for Biden's physical and mental condition right now. They also can't factor in the MAGA phenomenon...and/or Trump's surviving an assassination attempt.
I think name recognition can go both ways. But certainly, Moore is a relative unknown. I guess I see it as maybe a 5 year candidacy, with an outside chance of winning in November, if Moore can capture everyone's imagination that quickly. And more importantly...I think the contrast in a Moore/Whitmer ticket would help Democrats down ballot more than Biden would, or more than Harris would.
Cosmicbot is desperately clinging to whatever floats by at this point.
I wouldn’t bet the deed to the farm on it, but it would be really hard for Trump to lose at this point.
DANC, just want to add a comment to your recap on the two parties history of executive branch coverups.
IMO during the Nixon and Reagan years the two parties in Congress were way more likely to join forces and take the notion of checks and balances seriously in dealing with the executive branch improprieties than they are today.
Today IMO an executive branch with both houses in the hands of the same party would have little or no oversight. Loyalty to party overrides Congressional responsibilities regarding checks and balances.
Sorry, Hoot, I don't think it's both Parties.
The media holds Republicans to account - many time obsessively, but they do it. And that's a good thing.
The problem is, they don't scrutinize Democrats nearly at the same level. If Republicans pulled half the hijinks Democrats have, they'd all be rotting in jail right now.
Seems to me, judging from the give and take at the Water Cooler, those supporting the Republicans have enough media (television, books, newspapers, radio, magazines, internet) coverage on their side to successfully counteract the media which supports the opposition party.
The big equalizer being the social media available via the internet where a growing number get their political information.
Of the major networks, Fox is cable, while ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS are free on air and on cable. MSNBC and CNN are cable.
The number of left leaning news stations far exceed one cable network.
Social media is only now becoming more equal only because Musk bought Twitter. And he's no conservative, but a free speech advocate.
The only routinely conservative outlets I see as a major source of information are The New York Post newspaper, Fox (cable) and Newsmax (cable).., anything else with a conservative bent you basically have to google to find an topical article...
The rest of the major media outlets are in the bag for the Democrats 24/7... Hence not a single live interview with Cackling Kamala 17 days into her campaign, while they're totally disinterested as to whether our current sitting Commander in Chief is even remotely mentally fit to command anything...
WSJ is not in the bag for the Dems. I think their reporting is down the middle.
Similar threads
